I wondered whether I should write about South Africa's involvement in Iraq, fearing that it might become a moot point in a few weeks' time anyway, but I could not escape the historical significance of my country acting as a peacekeeper, on behalf of the UN from which it was ostracized for so long. The irony of the situation is that the South African team seem to be more welcome in Iraq than the UN's own inspectors, but the reason for this welcome also hints at the ultimate failure of their mission.

They are there because they want to advise the Iraqis on how to come clean with the UN, as South Africa did in its disarmament process, but that seems to me to be an admission by both parties that Iraq has not come clean in the first place, which is the very reason why there is currently so much war talk. The South Africans are welcome, firstly because they have no power to search and destroy and secondly, because it gives the impression that Iraq is making peaceful progress towards disarmament.

The problem is that there are fundamental governing differences between the South African and the Iraqi experiences of disarmament. South Africa was not ruled by a dictator to whom the parliament was subservient. The parliamentary structure in Iraq can be overruled by a single word from Saddam. From the start the UN trusted South Africa. Saddam's good faith was doubted, with good reason, even before the latest UN Resolution 1441 was debated and passed. The South African government was trying to elevate its status to a beacon of international democratic transparency. Saddam, has no such ambition. The UN liked South Africa. No one likes Saddam.

What similarities are there then between South Africa and Iraq on which a successful cooperation and disarmament can be based? Oh yes, Nelson Mandela and Saddam Hussein agree with me on George Bush.

25 February 2003

Dion Marc Delport

Comment on this article in my Guestbook

Back to Dion's Home Page