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.