Israeli-Lebanon Crisis: briefing by Ambassador Matjila

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
23 August 2006
ISRAELI-LEBANON CRISIS: BRIEFING BY AMBASSADOR MATJILA

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
The Israeli – Lebanon Crisis: A frame work for discussion
The Republic of Lebanon, The Israeli – Lebanon Crisis: amendments due to recent situation : Part1 & Part2

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed by the Honorable Ambassador J M Matjila on the Israeli – Lebanon crisis. He presented this crisis in context to the conflict within the region, and named the origins of the crisis, the historical divisions, and the sources of the conflict. He referred to the role of the world powers and international actors in the situation, and particularly the role of South Africa in the conflict. The implications for South Africa were discussed with reference to the intended stance for the Middle East, while the issues of oil dependency and the possible threat to Iranian based South African companies was offset against the international obligations and the calls for evacuation and sanctions. The issue of individual South African citizen involvement in armed forces of conflict countries was raised, with a suggestion that the Legislature must attend to the issue in the Foreign Military Act which was currently under discussion. There was much discussion around the accuracy of casualty reports and whether the ceasefire would hold. In both cases, the role of the United Nations was brought up as was that of the United States and the Security Council.

The Committee questioned the funding of parties to the conflict, the accuracy of information on casualties and initiators of the fighting, and participation of South African citizens on an individual basis, without South African State backing. A number of members cautioned that South Africa should have a balanced and neutral approach. Some queried whether war was inevitable in the region, and the position of the Arab League. Ambassador Matjila concluded that important issues needing to be further addressed included the role of the media, the economic importance of oil to South Africa, and the fact that the whole world was becoming increasingly vulnerable. He noted that the economic importance of China should not be underestimated. Accurate information was vital to try and gain a clear perspective of the situation, thereby enabling more efficient and successful policies.

MINUTES
The Honourable Ambassador Jerry Matjila (South African Ambassador in Brussels) gave a presentation on the problems presented by the Israeli – Lebanon crisis and its global effect. He began by giving a historical overview, and focused on the origins of the conflict, the sources and causes and the possibilities of a maintained ceasefire. He outlined South Africa’s obligations, highlighting its role as an independent nation, as a member state of the United Nations and as a recipient of Middle Eastern oil. The implications of the conflict for South Africa were discussed, including the intended stance for the Middle East, the issue of oil dependency and the possible threats posed to Iranian based South African companies. Further implications arose from international obligations and the calls for evacuation and sanctions. He raised the issue of individual South African citizen involvement in armed forces of conflict countries, which was precisely the point presently under discussion in other committees. There had been a suggestion that the legislature needed to attend to the legislation urgently. He discussed the accuracy of casualty reports and the likelihood that the ceasefire would hold. The roles of the United Nations, the United States and the Security Council were discussed. Ambassador Matjila concluded his presentation with some suggestions as to the actions South Africa should take and a ‘future trajectory’ for a long term easing of tension.

Discussion
Mr D Gibson (DA) articulated a concern as to whether any enquiry had been made into the funding of Hezbollah, and suggested that this might be an area for investigation in order to curtail hostilities. He queried the accuracy of the numbers relating to casualties, and information concerning which side was initiating hostilities.

Ambassador Matjila reaffirmed that the sources of information were limited to the work of the United Nations, and he too confirmed that there was concern about their accuracy. There had been little investigation done into which side had suffered greater casualties, but on the basis of the United Nations reports it appeared that the Arab side had suffered greater casualties due to their northern location; the Christian sector of Lebanon was located in the south. There was no conclusive evidence as to whether attacks were initiated from Christian or Arab parts. However, it was likely that attacks took place from the Christian sector and were directed towards the Arab sector, which would also explain the higher number of Arab casualties.

Mr L Labuschagne (DA) was interested in establishing who had armed the forces and who initiated the attacks. He asserted that South Africa needed a balanced approach to uphold the positive perception of South Africa held by the international community, as well as to reduce South Africa’s vulnerability to attack.

Ambassador Matjila agreed that indeed the participation of South African in foreign wars was a complex issue, as South Africa was noted world wide for its contribution to peace. He quoted the stated hope of George Bush that “Iraqis (could) learn from South Africa.” Ambassador Matjila welcomed the involvement of Foreign Affairs and Relations as he believed this posed an issue of security for South Africa, that should be dealt with in a comprehensive and involved way.

Commenting on the questions relating to arms and first attack, Ambassador Matjila submitted that this was primarily guerilla warfare, and therefore it was difficult to establish who the attackers were and what weapons they were using.

Ms F Hajaig (ANC) addressed breaches that had occurred already in respect of the ceasefire. She also commented that the sides of a conflict could easily be ‘branded’ , which led to the assumption of certain perceptions by observers, which might not be correct. It was therefore extremely difficult to determine who was indeed the aggressor. Ms Hajaig called for a balanced approach to the conflict, with no sides taken by South Africa. Finally she queried Israel’s veto in the United Nations, and commented that this was a challenge to diplomacy.

Ambassador Matjila agreed that the Israeli veto was problematic and that it simply highlighted the weakness of the United Nations, and the inequality of the global forces.

The Chairperson pointed out that Israel was the largest recipient of United States aid and he wondered if perhaps this aid was being converted into arms, therefore answering the question as to the sourcing of arms. Secondly, he asked Ambassador Matjila if he could clarify the extent to which South Africans were participating in the wars, and whether such participation was correct.

Mr Z Madasa (ANC) raised an issue of the ‘marginalizing of secular modernity’ due to fundamentalism, which he felt was a source of the conflict. He noted that the regimes with influence were polarized into extremist positions, which resulted in a hardening of attitudes. He referred to them as ‘these regimes who are trying to play God’ and called for a different approach and ideology. He concluded that democracy was not the most favorable option, but one that left many with their hands tied.

Dr A Luthuli (ANC) highlighted the eternal question whether the problems of the Middle East would ever be resolved, particularly in light of the actions of the United States. Dr Luthuli questioned if there was any way in which South Africa could try to change the direction of the United States, submitting that it was clear that the United States did not understand that there is no hope in war.

The Chairperson extended this argument on the supposed inevitability of war in the Middle East. He asked whether the Arab League was now without power to make ‘any meaningful difference,’ or if they had now been compromised to such an extent that they now were part of the problem. He also highlighted the coincidence between the United States’ blacklisting of Syria and Iran for ammunition supplies with the announcement that these two states were part of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

Ambassador Matjila noted the problems relating to the query on the role of South Africa with reference to the United States, stating that it was difficult in this situation to choose a path that would not compromise South Africa’s diplomatic role. He further submitted that this was a global issue and that the European Union was attending to it to some extent by trying to counterbalance the United States’ domination.

On the issue of the Arab league, Ambassador Matjila submitted that the Arab leaders had had their positions compromised in the invasion of borders and security. He felt that this type of violation of state sovereignty needed to be addressed to promote security for the Arab leaders, which would therefore make them a stronger league to assist in conflict resolution.

Ambassador Matjila further highlighted the role of the media, commenting that those who controlled the media controlled thought. This was an issue he felt that needed to be addressed. However, the most important issues remained the issue of oil and its economic importance for South Africa, the fact that Osama Bin Laden was still “at large” and the fact that the world was increasingly vulnerable. The United Nation’s change of Secretary General was also of importance. Finally, Ambassador Matjila concluded that the economic importance of China should not be underestimated.

The Committee thanked Ambassador Matjila for sharing his views.

The meeting was adjourned.