“FOREIGN POLICY AND HUMAN RIGHTS: THE ROLE OF
SOUTH AFRICA”
Speech by Salil Shetty
Secretary General of Amnesty International
Delivered at an event co-hosted with the South African Institute of
International Affairs, in Pretoria, on Friday 10 October 2014
Check against delivery
INTRODUCTION:
I am happy to be here today at an event jointly organized by the South African
Institute of International Affairs and Amnesty International, thank you so much for
being with us today. I look forward to the discussion that will follow shortly.
My first visit to South Africa was almost twenty years ago, not long after the
astonishing first free elections of 1994.
Nobody in this room needs telling or reminding: the changes that millions of South
Africans achieved at that time stand as an inspiration to the world.
It was truly extraordinary to watch the power and dignity with which the South
African people succeeded in overturning the repressive and inhuman apartheid
system, and peacefully building a new and more just world.
It is exciting for me personally that Amnesty International has recently opened a
Southern African regional office in Johannesburg, building on its long established
national presence in South Africa and in many other countries in Africa. This move
is in recognition of the key role that South Africa plays today in the region as well
as globally.
Domestic challenges:
Naturally, Amnesty International has concerns about South Africa’s human rights
record at home, including socio-economic rights, the criminal justice system,
treatment of refugees and migrants, and the significant problem of xenophobia.
Yesterday – and one of the reasons for my trip to South Africa this week -- we
launched an Amnesty International report on maternal mortality, emphasizing the
1
importance of access to antenatal care early in pregnancy.
Other troubling themes include the catastrophic events in Marikana, which left 34
dead and more than 70 others wounded, tragic embodiment of the chronic
challenges that South Africa faces in relation to policing and the broader criminal
justice system. We still do not see justice for the victims or full accountability. There
is a pressing need for full co-operation with the inquiry and accountability both for
the unlawful killings and for the cover-up of these crimes.
FOREIGN POLICY: ASPIRATIONS AND REALITY
But my main theme today – not least having in mind the name and focus of this
august institution – is how South Africa presents itself in its relationship with the
rest of the world -- how South Africa handles its international affairs.
I want to look at the reality – and at the potential, too.
I will argue today that South Africa’s conduct internationally, requires some
changes to ensure that its support for human rights and justice, core values
enshrined in the Country’s constitution, become more consistent than we see
today.
South Africa has an influential role on the continent and around the world. It is in a
good position to make real the commitment of President Mandela twenty years
ago, and echoed by subsequent governments, when he said: “Human rights will be
the light that guides our foreign affairs”
Too often, we do not see that light, today.
**
It has been argued that South Africa’s foreign policy, as in other countries around
the world, can go in two directions.
It can be an interest-driven foreign policy based on economic interests.
Or it can be an ethical foreign policy driven by human rights and values such as
justice and equity.
I would argue that South Africa’s foreign policy, given its historic, moral and
constitutional obligation should not be a question of one or the other. It should be
about both -- and how they can be mutually supporting. It is about how the
contradictions and complications can be reconciled and resolved.
We live in a world where economic interests cannot simply be ignored. But I do not
2
accept that human rights and economic interests are antithetical or that economic
interests must trump human rights.
I do not believe that Western governments should allow human rights to be put to
one side when it suits them.
And, by the same token, I do not believe that emerging powers like South Africa
should take that approach either.
ACHIEVEMENTS:
South Africa has played an important and positive global role in a number of crucial
areas over the years, and I salute that.
Africa, peace and security:
In the past twenty years, South Africa has made considerable and successful
efforts to integrate and advance itself as a global player and promote African
concerns.
South Africa played a critical role in the founding of the African Union and the
creation of its peace and security architecture. It continues to be one of the leading
supporters of and contributors towards the AU and its pan-African agenda.
In the area of peacemaking and the promotion of governance and post-conflict
reconstruction, South Africa has made commendable contributions.
These efforts included bilateral and multilateral South African involvement in
mediation, peacemaking, governance and post-conflict reconstruction processes in
Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Lesotho, South Sudan and a clutch of other countries.
South Africa is, as we all know, contributes to UN peacekeeping missions, thus
helping to save countless thousands of lives in Africa and around the world.
You are also aware that South Africa has recently joined the African Union’s Peace
and Security Council, at a time when the regional body is faced with serious
challenges of maintaining peace and addressing accountability for grave human
rights violations being committed in the context of violent conflicts in Africa. Libya,
South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia, DRC, Nigeria, Mali and the Sahel
region; the list is too long.
South Africans need no reminder of the intricate link between human rights and
conflicts in Africa. The continent has seen a number of instances where human
rights violations breed violent conflicts and vice versa. Persistent repression, denial
3
or perceived denial of basic fundamental rights as well as systematic forms of
discrimination and socio-economic inequality have given rise to many violent
conflicts in Africa. And threat is growing by the day. South Africa can and should
play a leading within the Peace and Security Council, not only in firefighting and
mobilising the necessary response to these conflicts, but also in addressing these
underlying root causes of conflicts.
South Africa and global bodies:
In the global arena, too, South Africa has had an important role to play.
As of last month, we have the fiftieth ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty which
bans the sale of weapons to those who might use them to commit atrocities – a
historic and truly astonishing achievement, and South Africa played an important
role in that regard.
I am glad that this important treaty, for which Amnesty International and its partners
campaigned for two decades, will come into force on 25 December, Christmas
Day. We’ve also come to learn the South Africa has started the process of ratifying
the treaty, which has been tabled in Parliament last week and referred to
Committee on Defence. South Africa’s voice has been important on this, and will
be essential in the future, too.
South Africa has taken some strong steps towards supporting international justice
the work of the International Criminal Court. South Africa supported the UN
Security Council referral of the situation in Libya to the ICC, and I hope that this
referral will see some justice for the victims of crimes under international law
committed in Libya. South Africa has also domesticated the Rome Statute with
some of the most progressive implementing legislation in the world. I also recall the
Government’s public commitment in 2009, that it would implement its international
obligations by arresting the President of Sudan, who faces an ICC arrest warrant,
were he to travel to the country for President Zuma's inauguration.
Sexual orientation & gender identity:
South Africa has in the past few years not been frightened to speak out on tough or
politically sensitive issues.
At the Human Rights Council in Geneva, South Africa’s voice on sexual orientation
and gender identity issues has been important. South Africa led, with Brazil, a
groundbreaking Human Rights Council resolution in 2011 on human rights
violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In proposing the
resolution on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, South Africa rightly
argued: “Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any
kind.”
4
Those words had an important impact, in a world where too many governments –
including but not only in Africa – are reluctant to acknowledge the importance of
LGBT people enjoying their basic rights.
South Africa’s simple words confront the absurd and offensive narrative that
suggests that human rights are not truly universal.
I urge South Africa to remain true to that commitment, to all enjoying “all rights and
freedoms without distinction of any kind”, a key point.
South Africa’s leadership on this issue must continue and its support to similar
initiatives must be unequivocal. I welcome that South Africa recently explained its
vote for a resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity by saying that it was
“compelled by the supreme law of [its] country to support a resolution that seeks to
reduce violence and discrimination on any basis”,.
That was absolutely right, and I welcome that reference to South Africa’s
constitution.
I count on South Africa to continue to lead the way on this issue -- and I encourage
the government to set a date for the long-promised regional meeting on these
issues soon.
SHORTCOMINGS:
In short: All the positive engagement by South Africa – on this continent, and
around the world – all this, I welcome.
But – and yes, ladies and gentlemen, you all knew that there was a significant “but”
coming – South Africa has not fulfilled its potential.
In many ways – in many sad ways – South Africa has failed to stand up for human
rights on the world stage.
Western hypocrisies, yes…
Now, let us be clear: the hypocrisy of Western powers is sometimes difficult to
overstate.
They preach human rights, but they remain too selective in when and where they
are ready to support the cause of human rights.
This foreign policy approach is reflected by the statement often attributed to the
1930s US administration, which in justification of its support for brutal regimes in
5
Latin America is said to have said: “He may be a son of a bitch…But at least he’s
our son of a bitch.” Many countries, particularly those in the West and especially
the big powers continue to be guided by this principle in their foreign policy
relations, to the detriment of millions of victims of human rights atrocities
A false sense of “stability” – however repressive – has too often been preferred
over engaging on the question of the human rights which can provide true and
lasting stability in any and every region.
It is depressing to look back on the history of the Security Council veto, and be
reminded how often it was wielded by Western powers during the apartheid era,
thus protecting the then government in Pretoria from global pressure, even while
millions of South Africans risked their lives to create peaceful change – backed by
those who cared about human rights around the world. No shortage of hypocrisies
during that era.
The end of the Cold War gave a chance to move away from such an immoral,
dangerous – and shortsighted – approach, but even today we continue to see a
Western reluctance to stand up for human rights without fear or favour, as Amnesty
International regularly has occasion to highlight, everywhere from Bahrain and
Gaza to China.
Or look at how Western leaders were happy to cosy up to everybody from Saddam
to Gaddafi, when it suited them.
The same double standards are of course equally true of Russia and China – they
are happy to speak out on violations at Guantanamo or the US use of drones (and
rightly so), but refusing to speak out on violations elsewhere.
Who loses from this one-sidedness? The victims of those human rights violations,
obviously.
**
But surely, ladies and gentlemen, bad behaviour in one corner should not
encourage a repeat of that bad behaviour elsewhere.
South Africa sends so many different messages on its human rights track record. I
believe that that can and must change.
Let me share a couple of examples of what I mean, by the failures to date – which
focus especially on the UN bodies in Geneva and New York, but which of course
6
have broader implications.
The first is from a few years ago now, but includes some vivid historical ironies,
which remain relevant today.
Myanmar:
In 2007, the security forces of the military junta in Myanmar (formerly Burma) killed
peaceful protesters on the streets, for the mere crime of daring to peacefully
protest. It was a situation that South Africans could easily identify with – and, one
would hope, the government would show solidarity with those who dared to speak
out.
Such solidarity would have repaid the solidarity that the people of South Africa
received from then-democratic Burma, half a century earlier.
At the time of the notorious Sharpeville massacre in 1960 – dozens gunned down
by the apartheid security forces -- Burma demanded that the UN Security Council
speak out on the killings.
The apartheid government was furious at the initiative; its ambassador insisted
that discussion of the government massacre would be “a most dangerous
precedent”.
Fortunately, the Council ignored him, and passed a resolution critical of the
massacre, and calling for the South African government to abandon racial
discrimination and apartheid. In short, common sense and humanity prevailed.
**
Now, cut to the scene half a century later. In 2007, the new South Africa was
welcomed as a new member of the Security Council, with high hopes for what it
might achieve.
And yet… when a draft resolution came before the UN Security Council,
condemning the killing of peaceful demonstrators in Burma, how did South Africa
react?
Not by giving the Burmese people the same global solidarity that the people of
South Africa had benefited from, in the apartheid era. No: the very contrary.
7
Using language that was close to the indignant responses by his apartheid
predecessor in 1960, the ambassador of democratic South Africa argued that
condemning the junta’s violence “does not fit with the Charter mandate”, because
of its focus on internal affairs. This, the ambassador explained, was a
“fundamental” reason for voting the resolution down. The government boasted
afterwards that its stance at the Security Council proved it had been “true to itself”.
**.
But surely a country which has achieved as much as South Africa has can play a
different, more noble role, by standing up for the oppressed – without fear or
favour.
On too many occasions, it has failed to do so.
ICC and accountability, regressive steps
Much as South Africa has a lot to be credited for progressive steps it has taken to
strengthen the international justice mechanism, it is showing signs of regression.
It was deeply concerning to see that the African Union adopting a resolution in its
extraordinary sessions last year deciding that no charges should be brought or
continued against any serving AU Head of State or Government. South Africa does
not appear to have objected to or voted against the resolution. It was also deeply
troubling to hear this year that the AU had adopted amendments to the African
Court Protocol protecting serving heads of states and senior officials from
prosecution before the African Court, including for crimes under international law.
Again South Africa does not appear to have objected to the decision, let alone
voted against it. Even though the president of South Africa defended these actions
in Parliament as legitimate, in pursuit of “promot[ing] stability” in Africa, it neglects
the other side of the issue -- that such immunities can only potentially lead to
impunity for crimes that include torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Human Rights Council:
At the Human Rights Council in Geneva, South Africa sometimes seems ready to
block constructive and progressive action on human rights, for reasons having
much to do with geopolitics and little to do with human rights. The only
beneficiaries of those efforts are the violators of rights.
There is a disturbingly large number of examples to draw on. I will speak to only a
few.
8
Peaceful protest, civil society space
This year, at the 25th and 27th sessions in March and September respectively, we
have seen South Africa join hands with notorious human rights abusers like
Belarus, Egypt, Russia and Saudi Arabia to table damaging amendments to
important resolutions on protecting human rights in the context of peaceful protest
and on protecting civil society space.
South Africa’s position on the protecting civil society space resolution, while
complex, is worth raising as an example. South Africa sponsored 3 out of 10
hostile amendments, one of which called for the deletion of a reference to a
Council resolution on combatting reprisals against persons cooperating with the
UN human rights mechanisms. It voted in favour of five hostile amendments, it
abstained on two others and it even voted against two.
In its comments before the adoption of the resolution it said that it could not
support the resolution, but it did not call a vote or dissociate itself from the
resolution. Although the resolution was adopted without a vote, fortunately without
all these damaging amendments, South Africa’s alignment with states hostile to
protecting civil society space remains noteworthy.
South Africa and China:
Equally shocking has been South Africa’s readiness to stand with repressive
states, against human rights defenders, as for example in a dismaying episode in
Geneva in March of this year.
When China’s human rights record was under scrutiny as part of the Universal
Periodic Review process, human rights groups sought to pay tribute to the
respected Chinese activist Cao Shunli, with whom Amnesty International worked
closely. Cao was detained in connection with her peaceful activism around the
work of the Human Rights Council. She died in custody, a week before the Human
Rights Council session began in March.
Human rights activists used the speaking time allotted to them during the adoption
of China’s rights report to observe a moment of silence in memory of Cao. It was
an obviously appropriate gesture.
The Chinese delegation reacted forcefully, unsurprisingly – just as the apartheid
South African regime no doubt would have done, in similar circumstances.
And today’s South Africa? Depressingly, South Africa’s delegate gave comfort to
the repressive authorities in Beijing, telling the Council that the activists’ respectful
9
silence was “irregular and incompatible with the rules of procedure”. He warned
that the Council must not “create dangerous precedents”.
In short:
Exactly the same reason given by the apartheid-era ambassador to explain why
the killing of dozens of peaceful protesters at Sharpeville should not be
discussed…
… was now being used by today’s Pretoria envoy, to explain why a dead Chinese
human rights activist should not be honoured and remembered in the chamber of
the Human Rights Council in the Palace of Nations in Geneva.
The “dangerous precedent” argument was wrong when put forward by the
apartheid regime at the Security Council in New York in March 1960…
and it remains just as wrong when put forward at the Human Rights Council in
Geneva 2014.
It is in that context that we can no longer find surprising the dismaying recent
denial by the South African government of a visa to the Dalai Lama, the very
embodiment of non-violence worldwide.
Amnesty International and other Nobel laureates protested at South Africa’s
decision, which led ultimately to the Nobel laureates’ summit– an event which was
scheduled to take place in Cape Town next week and has now been cancelled as
a result.
Syria
South Africa’s stance on Syria in the past few years has been equally unsettling –
both at the Human Rights Council and the Security Council. In Geneva and in New
York, South Africa has repeatedly failed to stand with the victims. It has stood with
those who wanted to ignore the victims – and thus, by extension, with those
committing the violations.
If there had been earlier sufficient pressure, we would perhaps not be in such a
bad place as we are today – and yet, South Africa helped ensure that the pressure
on the Assad regime in Damascus was not too great.
Russia and China get the most public blame for some of the failures to address the
Syrian problems at a much earlier stage – at a time, in other words, where we had
not yet descended into the morass of violence on all sides that we see today.
10
But there are fifteen members of the Security Council – and at the beginning of the
initially peaceful protests in Syria, South Africa was one of the fifteen.
In July 2012, a draft resolution critical of Syria was on the table.
Eleven Security Council members – including Colombia, Guatemala, India,
Morocco and Togo – voted in favour. South Africa, along with Russia, China and
Pakistan, were the only countries which refused to do so, thus scuppering, yet
again, the chances of effective peaceful action against those who were committing
such terrible violations on a widespread scale. South Africa explained its refusal to
back the resolution – thus giving cover to the Russian and Chinese vetoes – by
saying that the resolution was “unbalanced”.
It is always important to achieve balance. Balance is at the heart of Amnesty
International’s work. We would never criticize a government without addressing
violations by rebel forces also – and we welcome governments which show
balance, too.
But the truth is that the Security Council’s failure to address the grievous violations
by President’s Assad’s forces at an early date allowed the violations on the rebel
side to grow, including the massive and horrific violations by ISIS that we see in
Syria and the broader region today. The use of the word “unbalanced” made it
possible to look away from the violations at that time.
South Africa should not and cannot be proud of its failure to stand in solidarity with
the victims of violations, who they thus ignored.
CONCLUSION:
On the continent of Africa, South Africa often has a key role to play – as described
above -- and I welcome that. (Even if not all are necessarily content to see South
Africa as “the leader”.)
But there have been – and continue to be -- far too many occasions in recent years
where South Africa has on a global scale failed to stand on the side of the
oppressed. Instead, it has stood on the side of the oppressors or given comfort to
the oppressors – from Beijing to Damascus -- through its own silence.
South Africa should not repeat the shameful failures of other powerful governments
over the years -- when they have looked away from the suffering of others, and
thus allowed it to continue or get worse.
11
The world needs South Africa’s positive engagement, on behalf of the victims of
violations worldwide.
Let me give just a couple of examples of what I mean, with calls for some things
that can and should change – the list could of course be much longer, but please
take these as illustrative examples.
(1) First, International justice and the International Criminal Court: Justice and
human rights are at the heart of South Africa’s constitution and the Government
therefore should take all steps to ensure that these principles are at the core of it
actions regionally and internationally. South Africa needs to reject the notion that
incumbent leaders are immune from prosecution before the African Court or
elsewhere. It should not and cannot allow the creation one rule for those in
positions of power and another rule for the masses.
The International Criminal Court also has many well-documented problems, and of
course – as the Gambian prosecutor Fatou Bensouda knows very well -- the
spread of cases should be broader. But all governments, including South Africa’s,
should work to make that happen, not stand back from the Court or, worse, try to
sabotage its work.
Indeed, South Africa has an obligation to work towards strengthening the Court in
the years to come, and ensuring that it remains a strong tool to ensure
accountability for crimes under international law committed in Africa and elsewhere
in the world.
Among other courses of action we urge South Africa to call for the referral of the
situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court by the UN Security Council.
We recognize that there will be political pressure on South Africa not to take this
stance but we believe that South Africa has the obligation to act as a force for good
at the international arena and has the capacity to stand up to any of its allies that
may oppose such a call. We hope therefore that South Africa will act in the
interests of justice for all the victims of crimes under international law in Syria.
(2) Second, it is time for South Africa to demonstrate the constructive leadership in
the Human Rights Council of which it is capable.
It started to do that in connection with the efforts to combat discrimination and
violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity that I mentioned earlier.
It has in the past shown real leadership in efforts to combat racism and xenophobia
in the United Nations.
12
South Africa must stop playing geopolitics with crucially important, yet difficult,
issues and show true human rights leadership in efforts to move beyond fingerpointing to constructive dialogue and improvements on the ground in countries
around the world.
(3) Thirdly, UN Security Council: we recognize that South Africa, together with the
rest of Africa, is seeking progress on the wider Security Council reform agenda and
in particular the expansion of the membership to give African countries more
presence, and in particular more permanent presence. And it is right to do so. But I
hope this broader reform agenda will not be a barrier for South Africa to support
the current initiative for members of the UN Security Council to adopt a ‘code of
conduct’ whereby they agree to voluntarily refrain from using their veto in situations
of mass atrocity, including genocide. It’s about time that the exercise of veto power
in the Council is regulated, and South Africa’s voice on this could make a real
difference.
(4) Above all – and echoing many of the points I have made above -- South Africa’s
foreign policy should better reflect the values and principles contained in its own
Constitution. We should not have this gaping gap between words and deeds.
If these and other similar commitments can be achieved, we will have much to
thank South Africa for.
I think we can all agree:
Defining a foreign-policy stance merely by what other countries don’t want you to
do is hardly a recipe for serious diplomacy.
I believe that human rights is how we can create positive change in the world
today.
I firmly believe that South Africa can play a key role in doing so. And I look forward
to the day – hopefully not too far from now – when we will see South Africa as an
unambiguous leader on human rights issues around the world.
I hope that you will work with Amnesty International, and the global human rights
movement, towards that important end.
In the years to come, it is impossible to overstate the global difference that – I
believe – this great country can make.
Thank you.
13