Whenever the South African government has not wanted to deal with an international crisis which other countries want the United Nations (UN) Security Council to address, it has invoked the argument that the problem is not a threat to international peace and security.
That is the official requirement for involving the Security Council in a dispute. The South African government most famously - or notoriously - invoked that rule when it voted against a resolution condemning the human rights abuses of the Burmese military junta.
It has also invoked this criterion to resist international efforts to put Zimbabwe on the Security Council agenda. Precisely what constitutes a threat to international peace and security has not been defined at the UN.
Continues Below ↓
But when violence spills over the borders of the country in question, that should surely qualify it for Security Council attention.
Last week, we saw the crisis in Zimbabwe erupt in Alexandra, Johannesburg, as South Africans attacked foreigners, mostly Zimbabwean, accusing them of stealing their jobs, their women and their possessions.
Those who kill, rape or otherwise assault foreigners must ultimately carry the blame themselves for their actions.
But this eruption of xenophobia also took place within a wider context of national and foreign policy, which must also be examined if the violence is to be understood properly and avoided in the future.
The Forced Migration Studies Programme at Wits University has laid at least some of the blame on the South African government for failing to construct a national policy to deal with the huge inflow of millions of Zimbabwean economic and political refugees into the country.
These people have greatly increased the competition with locals for scarce jobs and services.
Continues...
|
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Digg
Delicious
Newsvine
Facebook
muti
Twitter
