Topic: "South Africa's Role in Contributing to the African Continent's Development through Mediation and Peace Efforts”
Programme Director
Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Uppsala University, Prof Kerstin Sahlin
His Grace, the Archbishop of the Church of Sweden, the Rt Rev Anders Wejryd
The Governor of Uppsala Province, Mr Peter Egardt
The Head of the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Prof Peter Wallensteen
The Director of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Dr. Henning Melber
The Director of the Nordic Africa Institute, Dr Carin Norberg
The President of the Uppsala Association of Foreign Affairs, Mr Marcus Lindberg
Your Excellencies, Members of the Diplomatic Corps
Ladies and gentlemen:
I thank you very much for this opportunity to share my humble views on South Africa's role in contributing to the African continent's development through mediation and peace efforts.
It is indeed an honour to present this lecture at this prestigious institution which has produced numerous Noble Laureates and is regarded as the premier institution of higher learning in Scandinavia.
For many South Africans Sweden is historically evocative on account of the selfless contribution its people have made towards our liberation struggle.
For the short time we have been here we have been able to pay homage to the towering memories of two of Sweden's great sons.
Yesterday we had the privilege to pay homage to Prime Minister Olof Palme, a tireless campaigner for peace, equality, human rights and freedom.
Again earlier today we have laid a wreath at the grave of another glorious son of Sweden and the late Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Dag Hammarskjold.
In paying our respect to this humanist and visionary, we drew inspiration from his spirit.
Such an inspiring vision animates humanity in its quest for building a better world defined by justice, equality and human dignity.
Our people remain much obliged for Sweden's commendable contribution to our anti-apartheid struggle and equally value our historical ties forged under the rubric of international solidarity.
Accordingly, we are proud that today South Africa is free and continues to build a united, democratic, non-racial, non-sexist, just and prosperous future.
For its part South Africa today prides itself on being fully driven by these same ideals of a better world grounded in human solidarity.
As a beneficiary of selfless solidarity, South Africa espouses the view that the values that it seeks to implant in our national consciousness have no physical or geographic frontiers and are universally resonant.
These values that inspire and guide South Africa as a nation are deeply rooted in the long years of struggle for liberation.
In consequence our foreign policy as a nation can thus be articulated as people-centred as it promotes the well-being, development and upliftment of all people.
This philosophy derives from our shared historical experience, which has over the years created a common consciousness of Africans as one people with a single destiny.
In this connection, we understand our role in and relationship with the rest of the African continent as being anchored on a shared vision of human rights, democracy, gender equality and justice.
These precepts are preconditions for the eradication of poverty and under-development, and advancing economic growth and sustainable development. They also guarantee peace and stability.
Over and above this, South Africa has embraced multilateralism as an indispensable approach to solving challenges confronting the international community
To this end we play our humble role towards contributing to African development within the context of the African Union AU).
The formation of the AU therefore reconfigured the intra-African relations in many ways. Among the central developments of this landmark inaugural conference of the AU was the decision on peace and stability in Africa.
We know from history that peace and stability are among the key requirements for any prospects for development in any social system.
The African Union Constitutive Act recognises "the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly - in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity".
It is not just a Pan-African platform for leaders to pronounce themselves on common positions, but it is also aimed at creating an integrated political, social and economic community.
It is also a platform for promoting accountability, good governance and transparency through the peer review mechanism.
Programme director,
The afore-going foreign policy provides the political framework within which South Africa engages issues of mediation, peace and stability on our continent.
Indeed, the African continent has seen flashpoints of conflict over many years.
For the sake of our common future as one continent, it remains the duty of all African nations to contribute towards addressing this malignant force tearing our own people apart.
We remain convinced of the importance of dialogue and negotiation as the primary strategy requiring a willingness to compromise, to recognise the credibility of mediation when needed, and for clarity on the desired objectives.
The irony of our history of apartheid oppression as a nation is that we learnt valuable lessons during the process of our multi-party negotiated settlement which led to our democratic breakthrough.
Our approach is informed by the lessons we have learnt during our engagement with the apartheid regime.
At the time of the negotiations the liberation movement, the African National Congress (ANC), accepted the need to compromise as a necessary requirement to move the process forward towards a new dispensation.
The ANC also recognised the fact that the white section of our society had genuine fears and had to put itself into their shoes to understand matters from their viewpoint and thus address the difficult questions with a measure of accuracy and sincerity.
From this point of view we came up with what was known as 'Sunset Clauses', which made certain upfront guarantees to the supporters of the old regime, in the knowledge that once they are sure of their safety and comfort, human beings are likely to buy into the new dispensation.
Even when the regime resorted to covert violence to destabilise society, we remained seized with the commitment to negotiations, knowing that no viable alternative existed for our people.
The most important lesson in this regard was the absence of bitterness, vengefulness or triumphalism. This is what shaped our attitude going forward.
We continue to believe as a nation that our successful negotiated settlement was not a miracle but the logical outcome of human will disposed to the notions of political pluralism and an ongoing search for consensus.
We firmly believe that an all-inclusive process is likely to lead to common ground that assures all the parties to the conflict that they have a stake in the resulting peace and reconciliation.
We are also alive to the reality that conflict is a challenge we need to address with dedication and commitment, and recognise that these hardships can only be dealt with in the context of the AU.
The notion of a war to end all wars is not the way to go. Matters tend to work out better if our differences are resolved through negotiations.
Yet the key question remains: what is the dominant plank for problem solving in today's world? For South Africa, the force which clearly worked for us remained in the realm of a moral, negotiated settlement.
As the saying goes, it is better to use the force of our example rather than the example of our force.
I would like to make mention firstly of moral consistency and integrity. These principles are fundamental to winning the trust and concomitant desire of the warring parties to have a meaningful dialogue.
Our contribution to peace, reconciliation, stability and post-conflict reconstruction in the African continent has invariably emphasised inclusivity and universal participation in the peace making process.
We also try to assist the parties to the conflict to navigate and grapple with the breadth and depth of what are often potentially complex societal reconciliation processes.
Indeed, we believe that these organic principles must underpin all mediation efforts.
On this account we have been engaged in numerous peace efforts throughout our continent since the onset of our democratic dispensation.
We have engaged in these mediation efforts in search of peace and stability as well as post-conflict reconstruction in a number of African countries, including the Sudan, Burundi, DR Congo and Cote d'Voire and Zimbabwe.
In accordance with the vision of the AU, we do not lead peace efforts as a know-it-all centre of excellence, but anchor our labours within the broader context of peace and security as laid out by the AU.
Against this elaborate background, many here today may be legitimately wondering as to the circumstances surrounding the current upheavals in North Africa, especially in Libya.
From the beginning of the crisis, the AU remained deeply engaged with both pro- and anti-Ghadafi forces in Libya, consistent with our principle of multi-party dialogue to any mediation process.
Three non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council who are also members of the AU, namely South Africa, Gabon and Nigeria, voted for resolution 1973, which sought to protect Libyan civilians from the threat of bombardment by Col Ghadafi's regime.
Notably, this resolution would hopefully facilitate the creation of a platform for dialogue for the people of Libya.
The African Union High Level Committee had earlier proposed a roadmap which called for:
- The immediate cessation of all hostilities;
- Cooperation of the Libyan authorities to facilitate the diligent delivery ofhumanitarian assistance
- The protection of foreign nationals, including African migrant workers and
- the adoption of the necessary political reforms to address the root causes of the crisis, including the absence of democracy, political reform, justice, peace and security, as well as socio-economic development.
We remained convinced that the historical character of most of African nations' problems could not and would not be solved by military might, especially extraneous military aggression.
African societies as they are today were shaped by colonial forces in a manner that ensured that there is a multiplicity of social interests, from class to ethnicity, defined by mutual mistrust and, for better or for worse, perceptions of domination.
These peculiar African conditions have forged our understanding, whether as South Africa or the AU, on the nature of African conflict and the required course of action.
This is all the more reason we have always believed in the potency of jaw-jaw over war-war and the Libyan situation was no different.
Guided by our own experience as a country that emerged from an odious system of apartheid, we sincerely wished for a genuine and irreversible process of reconciliation involving all parties as equal partners in the post-reconstruction exercise that must necessarily follow in Libya.
Such commitment to a universal vision of reconciliation, unity and nation building by and for Libyans themselves is the only way to build a united, democratic, non-tribal, just and prosperous Libya.
It is common knowledge that good governance is the outcome of popular mandate. The rulers derive their legitimacy from the democratic elections.
The fall of Col Ghadafi's regime typifies this observation, as is the fall of many dictatorial regimes in Africa and elsewhere in the world.
As Benjamin Franklin precociously put it: "nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to know the true character of a man, give him power”!
Therefore the true character of the new leadership will be tested by their ability to build robust democratic institutions that allow space for civil society activity.
It should be stressed that South Africa, through the AU Ad-Hoc Committee, remains ready to play its role in the overall efforts to help stabilise the situation and promote democracy and reconstruction.
On the positive side, the leadership of the NTC, in its letter to the Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union (AU) on 05 September 2011, provided assurances stressing their commitment:
- to the African Continent
- to give priority to national unity and to bring together all Libyan stakeholders, without any exception, to rebuild the country and
- to protect all foreign workers within Libya, including African migrant workers.
It must be noted that all these encouraging commitments were in line with the provisions of the AU Roadmap.
In this context the above values and principles that shaped our new democracy, South Africa will continue to support the people of Libya in meeting their legitimate aspirations for democracy, justice, peace and security.
For sustainable peace to be achieved, it is critical that the Libyans themselves assume full ownership of their future.
Programme director,
Of concern to us is the extent of mistrust within the UN Security Council occasioned by the manner in which Resolution 1973 was ultimately used as a pretext to effect a regime change in Libya.
The implications of this turn of events for future cooperation for peace among the UN Security Council members are troubling indeed.
For one thing, the tragic events unfolding in Syria demonstrate this creeping mistrust and paralysis.
In this case, some permanent members of the Security Council are questioning: will a resolution on Syria not be used to further other geo-political interests rather than deterring further deaths of unarmed, defenceless civilians yearning for democracy?
From the viewpoint of South Africa we are convinced that the above scenario regarding the Libyan crisis points to an urgent need to reform the United Nations Security Council to become more representative and truly multi-vocal, reflecting the wishes of humanity.
History has taught us that in the long-run the unequal distribution of power tends to imbue those who wield such power with an exaggerated sense of self-righteousness that ultimately overrides their sense of external reality.
Paradoxically, the Ghadafi regime that has just been toppled lent colour to this line of reasoning, in that its intoxication with power launched it into the realm of fantasy, where reality and myth become much of a muchness.
This scenario often creates conditions less propitious to human solidarity and often leads to the perception of the world in totalising terms, with the powerful imposing their will on the weak.
Right now the reality on the ground is that the UN is virtually reduced to a mono-thematic agenda, manifesting the disproportionate global power relations by tilting towards the abiding political and economic interests of the powerful.
This apparent asymmetric power equation inhering in the institution that governs world affairs may be having the unintended consequences of fuelling rather than preventing humanconflict.
We are of the view that the need for the equitable distribution of power in the global body of governance compels reform of the UNSC.
We need to find a better system of addressing global issues guided by the realisation that we all have a stake in the planet we inhabit rather than by the raw power we possess.
As they say if all we have is a hammer, all we may see of the world will be a nail!
Ladies and gentlemen,
I noted earlier on that the discourse I am sharing with you today is about South Africa's role in contributing to the African continent's development through mediation and peace efforts.
The reason for the link between development and peace and stability is self-evident: there can be no social development in any society without entrenched conditions of peace and stability.
By the same token, I would like to contend that the current global economic crisis is potentially a mortal menace to current peace efforts on the African continent to the extent that it is gradually undermining conditions of human comfort, such as they are.
Since 2008, the financial and later economic crises have caused huge suffering in terms of unemployment and reduced public services for poorer people.
No less an authority on international economy than Joseph Stiglitz reminds us that:
"Even emerging markets and less developed countries that managed their economy well, resisted the bad lending practices, held high levels of foreign exchange reserves, did not purchase toxic mortgages, and did not allow their banks to engage in excessive risk taking through derivatives are likely to become embroiled and to suffer as a result” (Stiglitz 2009).
And so the developing South, and particularly the African continent with its weak economic base, is severely affected by the global economic crisis.
We have even seen the adverse effects of this continuing economic crisis on the developed nations as is the case in Greece.
While the developing world lacks access to capital for development and growth, in other words long term investment, the capital residing in the developed world is largely employed for short term returns, often for speculative purposes.
The result of this world economic turn of events is that capital is no longer available for long term projects such as mining and infrastructure, and other development orientated investments in the developing countries.
Thus this development poses a mortal danger to goals set out in NEPAD.
In such circumstances the present throws up harshness for the lives of theyoung people with no hope for the future.
As you know, when a large number in society has nothing to lose but its chronic suffering our collective existence as a species is at stake.
In the light of these realities our mode of thinking has to change to enable us to re-think worn-out assumptions about the current economic system.
We can only ensure an ever lasting peace in Africa and for that matter the world at large if the broadest cross section of humanity sees a stake in the future we are building.
By the same token, people are most open to pernicious ideas under conditions of want, when anything goes and stomach-level consciousness determines the type of lives they choose to lead.
Across Africa such has been the case over the years. However, the deepening economic crisis is expanding the legions trapped in this mode of existence and providing legitimating grounds for a subjective form of consciousness impervious to humanist and peaceful values.
The long and short of my contention is that it is increasingly clear that the world needs a new type of leadership and vision unencumbered by the baggage of unworkable ideas elevated to the status of dogma.
As they say each age gets the idea it needs. However for such an idea to emerge subjective exertion is needed that breaks new ground in searching for thinking most attuned to the needs of the time.
In this regard, we should heed the council of the African-American academic, Professor Walter Earl Fluker, who submits that:
With the long-range economic, political, and social costs of war, a troubled world economy, and rapid advances (crusades) in technology, science, and globalisation, we now have the makings of a social anarchy that threatens the very foundations of our social purpose” (Ethical Leadership, p 40, 2009).
We believe that it is within the bounds of possibility to construct a human-centred world, propelled by ethics and defined by values of universal consciousness.
Such a world is only possible if based on an economic system geared to human needs by putting the production, distribution and consumption of the earth's resource within reach of the world's people.
This viewpoint does not argue for a blind equal redistribution of the earth's fruits in a manner mindless of issues of hard work, talent, and the recognition that our work rate is not the same.
This way of seeing things is rather contending that the current world systems in both spheres of politics and the economy are structurally inequitable and disadvantage a large section of humanity.
I submit that not only do we need to change the socio-political lie of the land as it is configured right now, but also; we need to change our understanding of the historical process and the social system that defines our world today by re-thinking our conceptual lens of perception.
Our present knowledge-framework through which we grasp social experience may itself be disabling us to reach for a deeper understanding of causality that accounts for our wretched existence expressed through chronic poverty, power-mongering, civil wars and economic strife, among others.
A demoralising prospect as it is, we need to reckon with the reality that the earth's resources are finite and at some point our material progress is going to catch up with us.
Our new thought systems should sensitise us to the reality that we need to make international solidarity our new mantra, given that the imperatives of globalisation have made happenings all over the world, whether through natural disasters, aborted political election, civil wars or recession, inter-related.
Human beings have no choice but to develop global solidarity.
Human experience tells that no rules are immutable or valid for all times under all conditions and that there are no forces impermeable to human will.
It is our argument that the human story will never be complete until we infuse our history with social justice.
South Africa's push for a multi-lateral world order that thrives on multiplicity of voices and the concerns of all partners is the byproduct of this point of view.
Our engagement in creating conditions for mediation, peace, stability and post-conflict reconstruction in Africa is located within the frontiers of this knowledge-frame.
Our key strategy to achieve the goal of lasting peace in our mediation efforts is defined by this all-inclusive dialogic process.
As a nation, South Africa is all too willing to continue playing its role in terms of African peace and development in this mode of consciousness.
I thank you.
