Sunday, February 22, 2009

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a ...

South Africa's stint on the UN Security Council was a miserable failure. But not totally. It did help the outside world see the ANC regime for what it is, a vindictive, precocious and uncooperative child with a chip on its shoulder the size of Mount Everest. With Zimbabwe, its actions were not unexpected - it was protecting Mad Bob - but with regard to other human rights' issues, it position was perplexing to outsiders to say the least (not to us locals).

Our outgoing baboon to the United Nations Dumisani Kumalo has provided some insight to the ANC regime's attitude to the process: he/them, being black, were not going to be told what to do by the 'big players' even though those 'big players' were trying to do the right thing to help some less fortu
nate around the world, mainly those ironically as it turns out, of non-white extraction.

What mattered most to the ANC was showing the so-called white nations that it would be the "cheeky African" and wouldn't be pushed around. This level of reasoning shows how asinine, uneducated and short-sighted the ANC regime is. What the ANC failed to grasp is that on the world stage, it's own petty racist, afrocentric ideology must be put aside and it must act with responsibility and leadership - to help others in the same position IT found itself 15 years earlier. That fact escaped the ANC. It was the UN Security Council and the mainly white 'big players' that got it into power.

The ANC regime's conduct was a disgrace and disrespectful. It should have showed its gratitude to the world by passing on a dose of its own beneficial experience at the hands of the Security Council but that is not the way of a selfish terrorist entity like the ANC. Don't expect South Africa to be invited back any time soon to the Security Council.

See also;
SA wants to delay Bashir (Sudan leader) arrest

SA Unrepentant Over UN Security Council Role

South Africa's two year term on the UN Security Council, which ended
on December 31, was coloured by controversy. Its votes on Zimbabwe, Burma and Iran drew criticism from the United States and other countries, as well as from human rights groups disappointed over its positions.

At the United Nations last July, there was uncharacteristically undiplomatic language directed at South Africa.


"I think he is out of touch with trends in his own country," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said, referring to then South African President Thabo Mbeki, after South Africa had helped block a sanctions resolution against Zimbabwe's rulers.

And early in its two year term, South Africa voted against a resolution demanding an end to human rights abuses in Burma, much to the dismay of the human rights community.

"South Africa, which in many respects embodied so much hope in so many different ways, and interestingly at home still has a pretty good track record of democratic behavior," Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch said. "And yet when it looks outward it refuses to address these things or wish the Security Council or the international community to do these things."

South Africa says its positions have been misrepresented.

Outgoing Ambassador to the United Nations Dumisani Kumalo maintains that dissenting votes on Zimbabwe and Burma were simply votes against considering these issues in the UN Security Council.

He says they should not be interpreted as blocking a human rights agenda. "We didn't want human rights to be used as a tool: 'If I don't like you I trot out human rights violations that you may have' but when it is Guantanamo Bay," Kumalo said. "They keep quiet and you know when it is Gaza they keep quiet."

He says the US and others willfully mischaracterized South Africa's policies.

"We didn't do things the way the British and the Americans wanted us to do them and if you don't do it like the big ones, the French and the Americans and the British, the way they want to do them, then you are a cheeky African, well I am happy being a cheeky African," Kumalo assert.

Responding to his comments, Britain's UN ambassador, Sir John Sawyers said in a statement that Ambassador Kumalo is an "outstanding public servant" and "personal friend" but also described him as a "bit of a maverick."

Even though South Africa's Security Council's term is now over, Ambassador Kumalo says he hopes his country will continue to play an increasingly important role in global politics. (fat chance idiot!)

3 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Steve Crawshaw talks bullshit. The ANC does NOT behave democratically at home. Whites are being systematically murdered and the country is being plundered Mugabe style. The ANC is a rogue government put into place as a direct result of the constant interference of the West in spite of abundant evidence to the north of what happens each and every time African countries are decolonised and the Idi Amin syndrome re-emerges.

And now they are surprised that Ambassador Kumalo behaves like the typical stupid bastard that he is. It's time sanctions are put back. The United Nations applied sanctions to SA before, let them do it again.

It's only a matter of time anyway. Wait till the rest of the world sees the extent to which visitors to the country will be raped and murdered during the 2010 World Cup. These are the true colours of the ANC: absolute hatred of anything Western or white. Eastern too. There is increasing discrimination against Indians who can't get into universities or get jobs.

Anonymous said...

Agh, they must carry on like they have been, with one minor change. They need to start learning Mandarin/Cantonese in their spare time.

And their future colonial masters give way less of a fuck about their "human rights" than they can possibly imagine.

Anonymous said...

The UN will do stuff all anyway for fear of being called racist.

The Chinese are facing a recession as well right now, more's the pity.