The English have a knack for candid sayings. One such saying jumps to mind upon hearing the latest uttering from the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, regarding the Palestinian refugee question: Call a spade a spade. Yet, we are treated to spin and more spin.
According to the NY Times, Mr. Olmert told one Israeli newspaper this past week that he would not accept the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes. The refugees fled Israel during the 1948 war between Israel and Arab nations.
On the other hand, the NY Times reported the view amongst Palestinians that even before the Arab nations attacked Israel, many Arabs had fled or had been forced to flee by Jewish fighters. After the war, Israel barred their return.
Apparently, the majority of Israelis appear to have an aversion to significant numbers of Palestinians inside the borders of Israel in fear of undermining "the Jewish nature of the state", to quote the NY Times. Deja vu again, I am afraid. Smacks of Apartheid, one could say. Only, no major Western government or spokesman utters a whisper along that line.
It appears that as long as Israel nestles under the armpit of the USA, very few figures of any international or national prominence would dare call a spade a spade with regard to Israel and the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, the region is digging itself ever deeper into a trench. Only problem is that the rest of the world may just slip over the edge into that very trench to tear itself apart once more.
31 March 2007
25 March 2007
Trading moral ground
There were some raised eyebrows in diplomatic circles this past week. Consternation might be too strong a term, but South Africa did shake the moral esteem in which the country had been held for the past 15 years with its counter proposal on a resolution for tougher action against Iran and its nuclear program.
South Africa had stood on high moral ground indeed since the remarkable political and social changes that came to pass between 1992 and 2007. The nation that was torn and traumatised by years of political injustice and consequent social unrest miraculously took noble decisions and a turn away from the precipice. In the process, the country turned a page in its history. It was welcomed back into the international community. It became the first country to renounce and abolish its nuclear weapons program of its own accord - although under pressure from traditional Western powers to do so. These actions had brought the country into high moral esteem and it since served as example for others to follow. That was until this past week when the South African ambassador to the UN left many leaders aghast with his proposed resolution on Iran. South Africa chairs the Security Council at present - a valuable position which should not be squandered by perverse proposals such as its proposal on Iran.
It can be argued that South Africa acted in its own interest although the formal line on the proposal was that it wanted to open the path for negotiation on the Iran nuclear issue. The week before the Iranian foreign minister visited South Africa for talks.
Iran is a notable trade partner of South Africa, which imports a significant quantity of oil from Iran. It is potentially also a weapons trade parter of Iran. South African heavy artillery had been sold in the Middle East in the past. The weapons industry in South Africa in dire straights and any potential deals could be rather tempting.
So if South Africa were trading moral ground for oil and weapon deals, would it be any different in this sense from the USA and Britain? Does not the USA prop up questionable Middle Eastern and South American regimes for its own political and financial interests? And yet, the US and UK foreign offices have been gasping for air the past week when South Africa seemingly attempted to throw a spanner into their works against Iran. Suddenly, the NY Times writes how South Africa has lowered its moral voice and makes rather trite remarks on the country's recent international stance.
The pot cannot blame the kettle it would seem. Morality in international affairs only go as far as the wallet dictates. In the end, we all have feet of clay.
South Africa had stood on high moral ground indeed since the remarkable political and social changes that came to pass between 1992 and 2007. The nation that was torn and traumatised by years of political injustice and consequent social unrest miraculously took noble decisions and a turn away from the precipice. In the process, the country turned a page in its history. It was welcomed back into the international community. It became the first country to renounce and abolish its nuclear weapons program of its own accord - although under pressure from traditional Western powers to do so. These actions had brought the country into high moral esteem and it since served as example for others to follow. That was until this past week when the South African ambassador to the UN left many leaders aghast with his proposed resolution on Iran. South Africa chairs the Security Council at present - a valuable position which should not be squandered by perverse proposals such as its proposal on Iran.
It can be argued that South Africa acted in its own interest although the formal line on the proposal was that it wanted to open the path for negotiation on the Iran nuclear issue. The week before the Iranian foreign minister visited South Africa for talks.
Iran is a notable trade partner of South Africa, which imports a significant quantity of oil from Iran. It is potentially also a weapons trade parter of Iran. South African heavy artillery had been sold in the Middle East in the past. The weapons industry in South Africa in dire straights and any potential deals could be rather tempting.
So if South Africa were trading moral ground for oil and weapon deals, would it be any different in this sense from the USA and Britain? Does not the USA prop up questionable Middle Eastern and South American regimes for its own political and financial interests? And yet, the US and UK foreign offices have been gasping for air the past week when South Africa seemingly attempted to throw a spanner into their works against Iran. Suddenly, the NY Times writes how South Africa has lowered its moral voice and makes rather trite remarks on the country's recent international stance.
The pot cannot blame the kettle it would seem. Morality in international affairs only go as far as the wallet dictates. In the end, we all have feet of clay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)