Jeremy Michaels
April 10 2005 at 02:37PM
Kader Asmal this week warned in parliament that the United States's policy of "regime change" could potentially have profound implications for South Africa's security.
Former education minister Asmal, who is chairperson of parliament's portfolio committee on defence, made it clear that he was not suggesting South Africa itself was under threat from the US, but that military interventions by the superpower on the rest of the African continent could have an impact on "our own security".
It would also be "most unwise" for South Africa to neglect its conventional deterrence capabilities, he told parliament.
"Fortunately, we have prepared ourselves well in this regard, through the strategic defence procurement package, but we need to ensure that this equipment is fully integrated and made operational," Asmal said. He slammed the US and United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan for apparent double standards in humanitarian interventions.
Addressing parliament on the defence budget vote, Asmal said there was "nothing necessarily wrong" with humanitarian interventions, pointing out that the concept was now part of the Charter of the African Union giving the body the right to "intervene in a member state in grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity".
However, the problem arose when humanitarian interventions were "applied selectively" - this was more about America's selfish interests than human rights protection.
"If the sovereignty of states is to be made contingent at least the new rules of the game need to be clear and equitable," said Asmal.
"Unfortunately, they are not. So-called humanitarian intervention seems to be the prerogative of the strong against the weak, and double standards are usually applied."
Asmal said it was "with foreboding" that he responded to Annan's adoption of his High Level group's approach that the UN had a responsibility, if not a duty, to protect civilians while the group simultaneously ignored "the fact that some great powers behave with a high degree of lawlessness in violation of humanitarian law" - the war on Iraq and abuses in allied prison camps being pertinent examples.
This was one of the most significant developments in the modern day global security environment. Another development for consideration was "the increasing willingness of the US in particular to act unilaterally, or more correctly, with some preferred allies, but outside the authority of the United Nations".
"This has profound effects for global security, and indeed potentially for our own security," Asmal said. This unilateralism was justified by the war against terrorism, Asmal said, but in reality international terrorism was at a lower level than, for example, in 1980s.
Africa had "sharply experienced" the effects of international terrorism, notably in Kenya and Tanzania, long before September 11, 2001, he said.
"Nevertheless, the tragedies of 21st century terrorism have spurred the United States and allies into an aggressive campaign involving things like selective 'regime change', which has a great deal to do with their national selfish interests and little to do with human rights protection."
Another major shift in the international strategic environment was the failure of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
"It has failed not merely to secure disarmament from the permanent numbers of the Security Council but also to stop the spread of nuclear weapons," said Asmal.
All this had grave implications for South African defence in the 21st century, he argued. It meant South Africa would have to pursue multilateralism actively in the area of defence and security and play its role in the international collective security system.
There were many aspects to this, including the urgent need to reform the UN Security Council and to this end the SANDF would have to be able to support South Africa's international role by participating in UN and AU peacekeeping missions.
Asmal told Independent Newspapers later he was not suggesting that the US posed a direct threat to South Africa.
"The US has obsessive interest in regime change. There is no question of a threat to South Africa, but this does not mean that the US has not been and is not bent on overthrowing what it regards as 'failed states'. South Africa doesn't face any threats, but our own security is closely tied to Africa's," he said.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050410123814790C954126
Author
