Browse all documents

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

This research paper analyzes South Africa's decision to vote in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 regarding military intervention in Libya. The author argues that South Africa failed to foresee how the resolution would be used by NATO to pursue regime change rather than solely protecting civilians, suggesting that South Africa may not yet be prepared for the responsibilities of a permanent Security Council seat.

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 'yes' vote for Resolution 1973 is attributed to several possible motivations: coercion by the US, France, and Britain; a desire to align with potential supporters of its bid for a permanent UNSC seat; or adherence to the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) principle and the African Union's Constitutive Act.
  • The author contends that the military intervention in Libya shifted from protecting civilians to an unofficial NATO policy of regime change, and that South African diplomats missed loopholes in Resolution 1973 regarding its implementation.
  • South Africa ignored warnings from BRICS partners, specifically China and Russia, who feared the resolution provided room for nations to pursue national agendas. Ramesh Thakur, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, viewed this as evidence that South Africa is not ready for the "prime time" of the Security Council.
  • To avoid future policy reversals, the paper proposes four precautionary principles for South African decision-making: 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