South Africa shrugs off criticism over Burma stance
Alec Russell 
March 1, 2007 
Finanial Times
Original Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/08be3b3c-c79a-11db-8078-000b5df10621.html

When South Africa proudly took up a seat on the United Nations Security Council in January for the first timein its history, it lost little time in marking itself outas a serious, self-confident and assertive player on the world stage.
It also lost little time in irking some of its western allies. In its first significant vote, it joined China and Russia in opposing a US-sponsored resolution to censure Burma over its repressive record.
As the junta in Rangoon gloated, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel peace laureate, led condemnation of the vote. It is a betrayal of our own noble past, he said. It is inexplicable.
Stung by criticism from across the political spectrum, South African officials say they failed to explain their position. They insist they were not condoning the junta's abuses. Rather they argue that they were making a technical point aimed at reining in the powers of the Security Council.
For diplomats, however, the Burma vote crystallised the impression that South Africa is increasingly keen to distance itself from the US and to a lesser extent, the west, on a series of issues, and to promote the idea of a multi-polar world.
South Africa is being very vocal about positioning itself as leader of the developing world rather than the patsy of the developed world, said one European diplomat. It is hard to see why they voted that way [on Burma] but part of what was happening was a reluctance to be aligning themselves with the US.
South African officials argue the vote was linked to their long-held desire to rein in the Security Council, and stop it both encroaching on the territory of other UN bodies, and also becoming the plaything of the permanent five powers, in particular America, France and Britain.
In their view, Burma should have been an issue for the UN Human Rights Council to consider rather than the Security Council.
We did not, as a government, educate the people of South Africa enough about how the UN functions. That is why we got the [hostile] reaction, George Nene, the deputy director-general of multilateral affairs, told the Financial Times. People should not mistake our vote for support [of the junta]. Our vote was a vote of principle, nothing further than that. And if an issue comes up like that again, we will vote accordingly.
South Africa, which aspires to a permanent seat on the world body and assumes the rotating chairmanship today, is shrugging off the criticism.
Mr Nene indicated that Pretoria believes the western powers, in particular the US, use the Council to impose policies on the rest of the world and that South Africa will in its remaining 22 months in the Council endeavour to speak out for the developing world.
Solutions brought from outside and imposed on a country most often do not have a long-lasting effect, he said in an implicit reference to Iraq, and also to attempts by the US and its European allies to lead the Security Council to impose UN sanctions on Iran.
Elizabeth Sideropoulos, the director of South Africa's Institute of International Affairs, said Pretoria felt a need to prove its credentials to the other countries in Africa. South Africa is keen to be seen as the leader of sub-Saharan Africa but faces scepticism from some of the more influential African states.
One of the reasons for resisting western calls for a more outspoken stance towards Zimbabwe is that it does not want to be seen to be working with the west against an African state.
South Africa has made clear it does not want to be seen to have formally joined an anti-US camp. Officials stress that they will not be representing any particular bloc or region on the Security Council.
But unquestionably US/ South African relations are poor. The recent designation of two South African Muslims on a US terrorist watch list has fuelled anti-American sentiment in the country.
There is a sense in South Africa that when things suit the P3 [the US, Britain and France] they end up in the Security Council, said Ms Sideropoulos. The Burma vote partly reflected that sentiment, although we played our cards poorly and we have lost brownie points.
South Africa sees the Security Council as a trial run [for possible permanent membership]. It may create coalitions but it doesn't wish to paint itself as in any corner. It wants to show that it is independent and will think for itself.