The UN Security Council is South Africa ready for the prime time?

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The paper critiques South Africa's 'yes' vote on UN Security Council Resolution 1973, arguing that the country failed to foresee how the intervention in Libya would shift from protecting civilians to an unofficial NATO policy of regime change. It suggests that South Africa ignored warnings from BRICS partners regarding loopholes in the resolution and concludes that the country needs a more rigorous, principle-based approach to decision-making to be effective on the Security Council.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • South Africa's support for Resolution 1973 is viewed by some as a result of coercion by the US, France, and Britain, or as a strategic move to align with potential supporters of its goal to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
  • The intervention in Libya transitioned from a mission to protect civilians to an unofficial NATO policy of regime change, a shift that South African diplomats failed to anticipate due to loopholes in Resolution 1973.
  • South Africa disregarded the concerns of its BRICS partners (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) regarding the potential for the resolution to be used for national agendas, a mistake described by former UN Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur as a sign that South Africa is not ready for the "prime time" of the Security Council.
  • To avoid future diplomatic failures, the document proposes four precautionary principles for South Africa: a human rights approach endorsed by the region, treating military intervention as a last resort, ensuring proportional means that exclude regime change, and ensuring a reasonable prospect that the outcome is not worse than the original problem.

Cite the original document

APA
South African Institute of International Affairs (2011). The UN Security Council is South Africa ready for the prime time? https://saiia.org.za/research/the-un-security-council-is-south-africa-ready-for-the-prime-time/
Chicago
South African Institute of International Affairs. The UN Security Council is South Africa ready for the prime time? 2011. https://saiia.org.za/research/the-un-security-council-is-south-africa-ready-for-the-prime-time/.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=South African Institute of International Affairs |title=The UN Security Council is South Africa ready for the prime time? |date=22 May 2011 |url=https://saiia.org.za/research/the-un-security-council-is-south-africa-ready-for-the-prime-time/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{southafricaninstituteofinternationalaffairs2011security, author = {{South African Institute of International Affairs}}, title = {{The UN Security Council is South Africa ready for the prime time?}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2011}, month = may, url = {https://saiia.org.za/research/the-un-security-council-is-south-africa-ready-for-the-prime-time/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated