South Africa and the Responsibility to Protect: from champion to sceptic

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the South African government's evolving position on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). While the country was an advocate of R2P in the run-up to the 2005 United Nations (UN) World Summit and the related idea of non-indifference in Africa, its conduct while serving as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and subsequent developments have raised questions about its continued commitment to these principles. In particular, Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya proved to be a turning point. It is argued that while South Africa continues to support the broad idea of civilian protection, it is in favour of a consultative, regional approach and has become increasingly critical of what it views as the selective application and militarisation of the R2P. In trying to make sense of the apparent contradictions in South Africa's position, it is necessary to situate the debate against the background of broader tensions in its foreign policy, particularly around the promotion of human rights. These, in turn, are linked to divergent and multiple foreign policy identities that the post-apartheid state is still coming to terms with.

Protect and punish: norm linkage and international responses to mass atrocities

“….] that had been tasked with finding a negotiated settlement to the crisis’ (Smith, 2016: 396). To explain why his government nevertheless voted for the military enforcement of a no-fly zone, the South African representative argued:In adopting resolution 1970 (2011) [on the ICC referral and sanctions, the author], the Security Council had hoped that the Libyan authorities would act responsibly and stop committing more acts of violence against their own people.…”