It is probably too late in the day to proffer an opinion on the matter but, for what it’s worth, South Africa cannot be faulted for the drastic decision to expel Ariel Seidman, Israel’s chargé d’affaires in Pretoria, for conduct unbecoming of a diplomat.
The country should undoubtedly brace itself for consequences, but not to have acted in response to repeated and clearly provocative transgressions would have amounted to a dereliction of duty.
It was time for a line to be drawn in the sand — one that should not be crossed. By anyone.
Article 9 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states that a receiving state may, at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending state that a member of its diplomatic staff is persona non grata. South Africa is therefore entirely within its rights to act as it sees fit.
Most diplomats I know carry out their duties with diligence, respect and absolute integrity, enriching the social, cultural, business and diplomatic relations between South Africa and their respective countries. They’re not here to cause trouble. Dealing with the South African government and its conceited bureaucrats can be trying at the best of times, but they take it in their stride. They’re just happy to be here. They love the country, its scenery, its climate and its people. Some even choose to remain as ordinary residents at the end of their diplomatic tour.
Mr Seidman clearly saw his role differently, or else arrived with a different mandate. Given the parlous state of relations between South Africa and Israel, he — or his bosses — may well have figured there was little to lose by going for broke. He appeared intent on ruffling feathers, seizing on every blunder, indiscretion and misdemeanour, and especially on what he saw as rank hypocrisy in the government’s foreign policy.
This government, after all, is a gift that keeps on giving. Still, we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr Seidman: a diplomat is ultimately a loyal messenger of their government.
He was spoiled for choice. This government, after all, is a gift that keeps on giving. Still, we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr Seidman: a diplomat is ultimately a loyal messenger of their government.
There was, however, another calculation at play. With Donald Trump in the White House, Israel — the US’s closest ally — may have considered itself untouchable, perhaps believing that South Africa, which has become one of Trump’s biggest foreign policy obsessions, would not dare respond, lest a ton of bricks come raining down on its head. That assumption needed to be promptly disabused.
Yet such a view is not entirely off the mark. For far too long, South Africa’s foreign policy has been about turning the other cheek, driven more by appeasement than principle, and by a fear of giving offence lest something terrible be done to us. We spend too much time trying to fit in, or accommodating the interests of others, often at the expense of our own. Our foreign policy is therefore all somersault and no principle, and we end up trampling on the very principles we claim to cherish and being accused — fairly or unfairly — of doing other people’s bidding.
For instance, we won’t allow the Dalai Lama to set foot here for fear of upsetting the Chinese. We cannot condemn the invasion of Ukraine because our friend Vladimir would be cross with us. We’re even scared of tiny Rwanda, for heaven’s sake. If the government acted in the country’s best interests, it would unequivocally condemn the killing of civilians in Iran just as it repeatedly denounces the genocide in Gaza. But because the Iranians are friends, we play footsie. But murder is murder, regardless of who commits it. Indeed, we should hold our friends to a higher standard. Earning our trust shouldn’t come cheap. You cannot pick and choose which crimes to condemn and hope to escape the charge of hypocrisy.
As expected, Seidman’s expulsion has provoked fury and accusations of moral bankruptcy from the usual quarters and their one-eyed commentariat. People should think carefully before lobbing such emotive phrases. They should, at the least, remove the speck from their own eye before lecturing others on moral rectitude.
In my book there’s nothing more morally offensive than the slaughter of babies. And as things stand, I’m not sure there’s much to choose between the activities of the Israeli government and the hardliners in Tehran. Who’s worse is a matter of opinion. Unlike the Iranian theocrats, the Israelis don’t kill their own people. But they’ve turned Gaza into a complete wasteland. That is what the regime’s apologists are trying to deflect.
People who’ve never given a fig about the indiscriminate slaughter in Gaza are suddenly deeply concerned about the victims of Iran’s murderous mullahs. Has the plight of the victims genuinely touched their beating hearts, or are they just using it as a convenient stick to lash out at Israel’s critics? Aren’t they guilty of the same hypocrisy that they rightfully level at the South African government? Condemn what Israel is doing in Gaza, and then perhaps some of us might begin to listen. Otherwise, you have no leg to stand on.
Of course, these charges of duplicity and posturing wouldn’t have stuck had the ANC not turned the country’s foreign policy into a mishmash that overlooks the sins of its friends while inflating those of its enemies. Such equivocation drains energy and weakens South Africa’s voice, even when it raises legitimate concerns.
South Africa should stand — or fall — on its principles. That’s how respect is earned, even from adversaries. But it should be done without bending the knee to anyone.
