| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Africa Subsaharan | |
| SA 'will | |
| 2006-01-30 | |
| Cape Town - South African support for Iran and its opposition to a plan to have that country referred to the United Nations security council over its nuclear programme is a decision that will not come "without a significant cost", says official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) chief whip Douglas Gibson. The DA MP said in a statement on Monday: "There is a very real possibility that by supporting Iran, that the government now runs the risk of alienating a significant section of world opinion and precisely those countries which are our biggest trading partners." It was reported in national South African newspapers on Monday that Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had made a surprise visit to South Africa where he appeared to win guarded South African support - together with Cuban and Malaysian support - to oppose Western plans to refer Iran to the security council about its nuclear programme. SA, Cuba and Malaysia's foreign ministers were at Hermanus at the weekend to discuss an upcoming Non-Aligned Movement summit. Gibson said: "It appears that President (Thabo) Mbeki has decided that supporting Iran is worth the cost of alienating some of South Africa's most important strategic allies, such as Germany, France, Britain, the United States and the European Union itself." German Chancellor Angela Merkel had adopted "a very determined stance" against nuclear proliferation generally, and Iranian nuclear ambitions specifically. She had accused Iran of having crossed a "red line". Gibson said further: "Without the support of these vitally important countries, there is little chance that South Africa will be able to achieve the level of economic growth that is critical to roll back unemployment. "The reality is that those states most directly affected by Iran's nuclear programme, including Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States, are firmly opposed to an Iranian nuclear capacity for the simple reason that it directly affects their national security. "In recent times Iran has done little to indicate to the world that it is a responsible actor in world affairs, as its belligerent attitude to Israel's existence has so clearly illustrated. "Therefore the excuse given by the South African government and Iran's other allies that everybody is entitled to a nuclear programme under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for peaceful purposes, does not hold much water. "In the midst of this complex geopolitical context, South Africa has to tread carefully. South Africa would be much better served to move beyond its policy of accommodation with Tehran, no matter its actions and join the broader global community in sending a message to Iran that it cannot embark on provocative actions such as unilaterally removing the seals on its facilities for enriching uranium and expect to get away with it. "Bitter historical experience has shown that the government has made a habit of choosing to support the pariahs of the world including Sudan, Libya and Zimbabwe. "It is therefore high time that we learned from past mistakes and used our considerable moral authority on the question of nuclear disarmament for the greater good of international peace and stability, rather than simply protecting at any cost an increasingly dangerous actor on the international stage," Gibson stated. Would have never happened under P.W. Thanks you west for your embargoes, sanctions, and support of the ANC in the 80's. Democracy is now flourishing in Zim and SA.
| |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #4 It was the racial separation and the enforced inequalities that made apartheid abhorrent, just as the Jim Crow laws of the U.S. were abhorrent, and just as the de facto apartheid of France is abhorrent today. I don't think anyone in their right mind quarrels with the imposition of a non-aboriginal rule of law upon the entire people of South Africa -- certainly the current situation, where a girlfriend of mine made her husband turn down an exciting assignment in Capetown because she was told to expect to be raped or robbed at least once per year, is not acceptable even if the government of a majority black country does reflect the population of its constituents. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-01-30 19:34 |
| #3 Apartheid is an Afrikaans word simply meaning separation. It carries no racial or religous connotation other than what has been attached to it by the ANC and others. If one finds the term or concept adhorent, consider the taking down the barriers that seperate one's national borders and see what results from unrestricted, tribal immigration. That was the origin of the matter you see. Yes, it is but one single aspect, but the one which apartheid was designed to prevent. A form of coexistence based on the rule of law was the goal. Not so for Robert Mugabe in Zim or others of a similar socialist leaning in the region. In another few years there will be difficult to find a white man in that part of the world. If it is discovered that Comrade Mbeki through some oil scheme, has agreed to facilitate Iranian nuclear development at Pelindaba, we'll be praying for a few stiff necked Dutchmen to return. I gaurantee it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-30 16:29 |
| #2 "Hi! Welcome to Zimbabwe South!" |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-01-30 16:27 |
| #1 WTF?! Just because the leaders of SA have their heads up their asses doesn't mean they weren't wrong in the 80s. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-01-30 16:21 |