| The promise of
a world free of war
On Monday,
January 27th, the current Iraq weapons inspectors will submit their first
report to the UN Security Council. The whole world is interested to know
what the inspectors will say.
Because of the global interest in this matter, all member
states of the UN will have the possibility to listen to the report, together
with the members of the Security Council. This will improve the capacity
of the international community as a whole to participate in the discussion
about the resolution of the question of Iraq.
The matter at issue is more than a decade old. It concerns
decisions of the Security Council that required that Iraq should be disarmed
of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Some countries have charged that Iraq has failed to
respect its obligations as determined by the UN Security Council. Naturally,
this has led to the demand that the Security Council should take all necessary
measures to ensure that Iraq complies with the Security Council decisions.
For this reason, towards the end of last year, the Security
Council adopted a new resolution on Iraq. This provided for a very vigorous
and thoroughgoing weapons inspection process, both to determine whether
Iraq has the offending weapons, and if it has, to ensure that these are
destroyed.
At the same time, the argument has been advanced that
this result can only be achieved by force. Accordingly, some governments
have stated their readiness to go to war against Iraq, with the additional
aim of changing the government of that country. Troops are being deployed
in numbers and in a manner that suggests that war against Iraq is inevitable.
It is the prospect of war that has generated the high
level of global interest in the question of Iraq. In this regard, we must
state our positions in the most direct terms.
Our movement is keenly interested that the objective
of the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might
have should be achieved. We are also firmly of the belief that Iraq should
respect and implement the decisions of the Security Council, including
the latest resolution of the Council.
At the same time, we are convinced that these results
can, and should, be achieved by peaceful means. To this end, we have made
every effort to interact with the Government of Iraq to convey our point
of view. We are very pleased that, at all times during this interaction,
the Government of Iraq has assured us that it agrees with the positions
we have taken.
Practically, Iraq agreed to comply with the Security
Council resolution. She submitted information to the Security Council,
as demanded by the resolution. She allowed the weapons inspectors to return,
and has not hindered their work. Where the inspectors demanded a more
pro-active engagement on the part of Iraq, she has obliged.
We are not aware of any information that would suggest
that Iraq has been in serious material breach of the Security Council
resolution. Nothing credible has been said that any such breach has occurred
to justify resort to war.
At the same time as we were speaking to the Government
of Iraq, we also interacted with others in the world who occupy decision-making
positions from which they have the power to decide whether the Iraq question
is solved peacefully or through resort to war.
We have sought to persuade these important global players
that the Iraq question should, and can, be resolved by peaceful means.
We have urged them to avoid everything that would drive the world towards
war over Iraq.
We have tried to state the point clearly, that the effort
to eradicate any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should not be used
to justify the declaration of war. Rather, this effort should target the
elimination of these weapons, precisely to eliminate the necessity to
go to war. The inspectors must be allowed to do their work.
Further, we have committed ourselves to do everything
in our power, limited as this power might be, to persuade Iraq to give
herself and the United Nations the necessary space successfully to resolve
the matter at issue, peacefully and expeditiously.
From the 1950s, after the emergence of nuclear weapons,
our movement has been opposed to weapons of mass destruction. This included
chemical and biological weapons. This derived from the humanist convictions
born of an oppressed people that had known the impact and results of the
use of unbridled force by people who thought they had a God-given right
to rule over others, with the sovereign right to determine the future
of the oppressed.
The conscience of our people and movement rebelled against
the idea that any human being should have the power and the means to wipe
out humanity through the use of weapons of mass destruction. Our people
and movement knew that both we, and the rest of the peoples of Africa,
faced the grave danger that we could fall victim to such an outcome, if
those who oppressed us laid their hands on these weapons.
Even as we campaigned for universal disarmament, our
oppressors worked hard to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As we approached
our liberation, the apartheid regime admitted that it had produced nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Intent that these should not be controlled by a government
that represents all our people, it entered into international agreements
that eliminated these weapons in our country. We supported this development,
even as we knew that it was driven by a determination to ensure that the
democratic government should have no access to such powerful weapons.
The reality is that, in any case, this government would
have ensured that our country was free of these weapons of mass destruction.
The matter went further, with the termination of the programme for the
development of the missiles that would carry and deliver these weapons.
Once more, our movement agreed to this, participating
in direct discussions with the major countries in the world that are preoccupied
with the question of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
We acted in similar fashion, to ensure the effective implementation of
all agreements our country had entered into with regard to the matter
of the destruction and non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction.
We are the first and only country in the world voluntarily
to implement a comprehensive programme of disarmament and the destruction
of weapons of mass destruction.
Because of these positions, which are central to our
long-standing approach to the important issue of war and peace, we have
opposed the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. However,
the matter does not, and cannot, end there.
The very countries that are threatening Iraq over weapons
of mass destruction, themselves own large quantities of these weapons.
They say nothing whatsoever against Israel's weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, from their point of view, the matter has nothing to do with
principle. It turns solely on the question of power. We disagree.
Proceeding from a different position, our movement has,
from its inception, taken the stand that it is committed to the resolution
of all disputes by peaceful means. Accordingly, we welcomed the formation
of the United Nations.
This was regardless of the fact that we were represented
at this historic process and event by an oppressive white minority regime
that refused that our own national problems should be solved peacefully.
We welcomed the birth of the UN in part because it gave the promise of
a world free of war.
Once more informed by these long-established positions,
we have insisted that the Iraq question must be solved through the United
Nations. World peace, and not the provocation of war, is the very reason
for the existence of the UN. Similarly, the UN exists because of a global
commitment to regulate the power of the powerful, in the interests of
international peace and justice.
We cannot accept that the powerful have a right to use
their power either to marginalise the UN or disempower it, to facilitate
the pursuit of their war aims. Nor can we agree that the powerful have
a right to use the authority of the UN and its prestige as a peace agency,
to legitimise a pre-determined decision to wage war.
And yet this is precisely what some of those who have
power have sought to do. These have worked to emphasise and enhance their
unilateral power, necessarily used to advance the national interests of
the powers concerned, regardless of the cost to the rest of the world.
This situation demands that we intensify the struggle
for the strengthening of the multilateral system of governance. The UN
is at the centre of this system, and is the only guarantee that the voice
of weak, such as ours, can be heard. It follows that since we insist that
the UN must mediate the power of the powerful, in our interest, we must
be the first to respect the decisions of this international institution.
But then, the UN must honour its own commitment truly
to represent the peoples of the world, refusing to be transformed into
an instrument controlled by the powerful.
The reality stares us in the face that a war against
Iraq would create a situation that would threaten international peace
and security. Inevitably, it would create instability both in the Middle
East and elsewhere in the world. It would postpone further, the long-delayed
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at great cost to both
peoples.
The inevitable sharp increase in oil prices and other
negative economic consequences would condemn the African continent to
a deep economic crisis. It would put paid to all the high hopes raised
by the NEPAD initiative and the formation of the African Union. Instead,
the peoples of Africa would have to confront the reality of even further
impoverishment.
The destruction of any weapons of mass destruction Iraq
may have is in the interest of the masses of our people. So is the peaceful
achievement of this goal. Iraq's cooperation in this regard is in the
interest of the masses of our people. So is the requirement that this
matter is handled by the UN and not decided through the unilateral exercise
of power by the powerful.
Because the masses of our people have a direct interest
in the peaceful resolution of the Iraq question, they have an obligation
to stand up and join the struggle for peace. That struggle for peace in
the Middle East is a struggle for peace and development in our country
and continent, for a new world order of peace, development, justice and
prosperity for all.
The struggle for the attainment of these goals demands
that our movement must go to our people to say to them that they have
an urgent obligation to stand up for peace. The situation demands that
once more, the masses of our people must act together as a powerful force
for peace in the world. The voice of the people must be heard.
 |
