Lat week I went to introduce myself to Mr Pitso from the SA Department of Foreign Affairs, Chief Directorate on Human Rights. Despite being warned that “high level Diplomats who wish to meet with young interns genuinely don’t have pure intentions.” I couldn’t say no the opportunity to cross question first hand someone from the SA DFA and attempt to reconcile my one time “proudly South African” attitude with the less than favourable actions I have witnessed of late within the UN. Mt Pitso offered me the opportunity to fire away at questions which I did.
SA Foreign Policy: Pitso described South Africa’s policy as “very confusing” he explained how South Africa does not believe in “naming and shaming” other countries as “the West does.” He proceeded to explain to me South Africa’s ‘silent diplomacy’ policy and how SA prefers to get involved on the ground and in bilateral relations rather than, through UN mechanisms such as resolutions. He sighted the DRC where he explained how SA has “invested huge resources” to help the country in the form of money, its military and people to assist with the election as well as helping to train lawyers and judges and build the public service. When I brought up the fact that there are still huge problems in the DRC, (recalling a graphic flyer of mutilated bodies I recently received from a group of DRC students trying to raise awareness for what they call “the sexual Genocide” that is still on going.) Pitso’s response was to imagine how much worse it would be if South Africa wasn’t assisting. (perhaps, but I’m not sure the mutilated body in the flyer would agree.)
Myanmar/Birma: I pointed out that this is all good and well but what about when conflict is still ongoing, other than sending troops, does SA not feel the UN has a role to play in trying to prevent it in the first place. I asked about Birma/Myanmar and why SA hadn’t supported resolutions condemning the Government in either the Security Council or the Human Rights Council. Pitso responded that the “West’s Approach hasn’t worked.” He explained that Pretoria believes in first speaking to the parties before condemning them with a resolution. When I asked whether SA was speaking to Myanmar, I was told that the government was “talking to Myanmar on a whole range of issues but that these issues don’t include human rights hitherto.” But that in future bilateral agreements Human rights will be part of the Agenda. The question is how many human lives will be lost by that stage. When I asked for some examples of where this has worked, he sighted Burundi and emphasised that SA “has been heavily involved in Palestine.” I decided not to question the fairness and impartiality of this “involvement”.
Sudan: Regarding SA’s lack of support for the resolutions against Sudan. He tried to avoid the question telling me South Africa was heavily involved in sending forces to Sudan and conducting dialogue there. He blamed the West for not sending adequate resources and complained that the UN Hybrid force would not accept the Authority of the African Union forces. He explained that as a principle position, if there is no consensus on a country specific issue and there is no existing mechanism to deal with the issue, South Africa will abstain from a vote in the UN. I therefore asked what role South Africa attributed to the United Nations, as from our conversation so far it seemed South Africa believed it should deal with world issues alone or through bilateral or regional agreements. Pitso responded that he would support UN resolutions in the right forum (clearly a reference to their lack of support for the Birma resolution in the security Council.) and if they “commit resources” as apposed to just “naming and shaming.’ He repeatedly referred to the difference between “looking good” i.e. supporting a resolution that condemns countries but does little on the ground (which he accused the West of championing) and “doing good”- actually helping on the ground. Basically, he confirmed my question that more can be achieved outside the UN than within it, through what he termed “loud diplomacy”.
Pitso spoke about how a better way to interact is to train lawyers and judges as South Africa is doing in Sierre Leone, Burkino Faso etc. He spoke about how SA does this not to gain political mileage and how Nordic Countries are silently funding and supporting these initiatives for genuinely altruistic reasons.
Zimbabawe: Pitso affirmed that Zimbabwe faces both political and economic challenges (no jokes!) and requires assistance from the region (SADC), the continent (the AU) and internationally (the UN). He spoke about the need to “inculcate among the conflicting parties to reach an understanding.” When asked about the recent elections he responded that they were indeed “free and fair.” He referred to SA’s role in setting up an electoral Act and spoke about how SA, in its capacity as head of SADC has encouraged the release of the results. He stressed that Mbeki will never handle anything unilaterally and is always in consultation with SADC. (He referred to SA’s intervention in Lesotho in 1998 under Mandela which was harshly criticised by other African states and that such action will never be repeated.)
When I asked about whether Pitso felt Mugabe will step down should he loose the Presidential elections, I was told off course “that is how democracy works” it is “the Will of the People”- it seems some of the other African heads of states missed this brief on this obvious fact. Pitso spoke about how he hopes those “shouting the loudest” will give Tsvangira, should he win “a chance to implement his vision” and give him the necessary assistance “without conditionality.”
Durban: Pitso said it doesn’t look it like will be in SA. He also spoke about how he felt that maybe there should be a new Prep Com because of the “deliberate exclusion of African NGOs, which was the case both in 2001 and at present.” He spoke about how the conference is characterised by “vested political interests.’ And how it is indeed ‘a mess.’ well at least that’s something we agree upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment