Norwegian envoy praises SA G20 Presidency and chairship
The Apartheid Museum is hosting an exhibit on the role played by Scandinavian countries in the fight for liberation.
Norwegian Ambassador to South Africa Gjermund Saether with dignitaries at the Apartheid Museum. Picture by Sara Shi Øyen
The Norwegian Ambassador to South Africa, Gjermund Saether, has lauded South Africa's Presidency and chairship of the G20 saying the country is doing a great job and Norway supports it despite criticism by some countries.
This is an apparent reference to US president Donald Trump who expressed doubt about attending the G20 despite the fact that the US is the next president of G20 to take over from South Africa later this year.
Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, recently boycotted the G20 Foreign Minister's meeting in Johannesburg due to the way the US administration views Pretoria's land reform policy.
SA's G20 chairship
Speaking at the launch of the exhibition on African Norwegian Solidarity held at the Apartheid Museum on Saturday, Saether said one of the manifestations of the good cooperation between South Africa and Norway was Pretoria's move to extend an invitation to Norway to participate as an invited guest country during the G20.
'South Africa is doing a very good job chairing the G20. It is surprising and disappointing to see some countries questioning the Sustainable Development Goals and the fight for women's rights,' Saether said.
'Norway, and so many other countries inside and outside of G20, fully support South Africa's priorities as the chair of the G20,' he added.
There is no doubt that the struggle for democracy, human rights and self-determination faces some headwinds.
In all parts of the world, there are countries in democratic decline, including several countries in Europe, and he named Russia as one of them.
'In a geopolitical shifting landscape, we must work against the old imperial idea that 'might is right'.
'The international community has a compass, or we can call it a rulebook, designed to prevent conflict. It does not solve all problems, but it is a good starting point. It's called international law, and it includes the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and international human rights. These principles must be applied in a consistent manner,' Saether said.
The envoy lashed out at Israel saying although it had a right to defend itself following the October 2023 attacks inside Israel by Hamas, that exercise of power was constrained by international law.
'All parties need to take active action to protect civilians, and to allow for humanitarian access. We all witnessed that this did not happen.
'With the support of South Africa and 136 countries in the UN General Assembly, Norway sent a powerful message by referring Israel to the International Court of Justice a few months back. It is unacceptable for Israel to block the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians living under occupation.
'Norway thinks international courts are there to be used, something South Africa is doing in their own case against Israel's war in Palestine in the International Court of Justice. Those countries who disagree with South Africa can present their view in the court in the Hague,' Saether said.
Need for African voices
Norway appreciated South Africa's engagement in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict through the African Peace Initiative and this week's visit of President Zelensky to Pretoria.
'Norway will support Ukraine's right to self-determination, just as we supported the same right for South-Africans, Zimbabweans, Mozambicans and others. The fundamental principle of international law also applies in another part of Norway's neighborhood, the Arctic. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.'
The Ambassador called for multilateralism and reform of the multilateral institutions, including the composition of the United Nations Security Council.
'Looking at the challenges of climate change, war and poverty, to name a few, it is clear that the world needs multilateralism more than ever. We need solidarity more than ever and we need reformed multilateral institutions that reflect the world of today.
'Now is the time for countries in Europe and Africa to intensify their cooperation to achieve this. Reform of the composition of the UN Security Council is long overdue and the African continent must be much better represented.
'When we supported the struggle for liberation, we also supported the quest for a larger African role in global affairs. This is more acute than ever.
'It is not only about morals and the fact that African voices have not been heard. It is in Norway's own interest that we live in an organised world in which countries on this continent have a fair say.
'The future influence of this continent in world affairs should be, must be, and will be bigger than before,' Saether said.
NOW READ: Norway's anti-apartheid role acknowledged by South African struggle veterans
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
3 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US vetoes UN Security Council demand for Gaza ceasefire
The US on Wednesday vetoed a draft UN Security Council resolution that demanded an 'immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire' between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza and unhindered aid access across the war-torn enclave. The other 14 countries on the council voted in favour of the draft as a humanitarian crisis grips the enclave of more than 2-million people, where famine looms and aid has only trickled in since Israel lifted an 11-week blockade last month. 'The US has been clear: We would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza,' acting US ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council before the vote, arguing it would also undermine US-led efforts to broker a ceasefire. Washington is Israel's biggest ally and arms supplier. The Security Council vote came as Israel pushes ahead with an offensive in Gaza after ending a two-month truce in March. Gaza health authorities said Israeli strikes killed 45 people on Wednesday, while Israel said a soldier died in fighting. Britain's UN ambassador Barbara Woodward criticised the Israeli government's decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict humanitarian aid as 'unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive'. Israel has rejected calls for an unconditional or permanent ceasefire, saying Hamas cannot stay in Gaza. Israel's UN ambassador Danny Danon told the council members who voted in favour of the draft: 'You chose appeasement and submission. You chose a road that does not lead to peace. Only to more terror.' Hamas condemned the US veto, describing it as showing 'the US administration's blind bias' towards Israel. The draft Security Council resolution had also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and others.
Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Anger as US blocks Gaza ceasefire resolution at UN Security Council
UNITED NATIONS - UN Security Council members criticised the United States Wednesday after it vetoed a resolution calling for a ceasefire and unrestricted humanitarian access in Gaza, which Washington said undermined ongoing diplomacy. It was the 15-member body's first vote on the situation since November, when the United States - a key Israeli ally - also blocked a text calling for an end to fighting. "Today, the United States sent a strong message by vetoing a counterproductive UN Security Council resolution on Gaza targeting Israel," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement after Wednesday's 14 to 1 vote. He said Washington would not support any text that "draws a false equivalence between Israel and Hamas, or disregards Israel's right to defend itself. "The United States will continue to stand with Israel at the UN." The draft resolution had demanded "an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza respected by all parties." It also called for the "immediate, dignified and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups," and demanded the lifting of all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Hamas, whose unprecedented attack inside Israel on 7 October 2023 sparked the war, condemned the "disgraceful" US veto, reiterating accusations of "genocide" in Gaza, something Israel vehemently rejects. The veto "marks a new stain on the ethical record of the United States of America," the group said in a statement, accusing Washington of "legitimizing genocide, supporting aggression, and rationalising starvation, destruction, and mass killings." 'MORAL STAIN' Pakistan's ambassador to the UN Asim Ahmad meanwhile said the failed resolution would "remain not only a moral stain on the conscience of this council, but a fateful moment of political application that will reverberate for generations." China's ambassador to the UN Fu Cong said: "today's vote result once again exposes that the root cause of the council's inability to quell the conflict in Gaza is the repeated obstruction by the US." The veto marks Washington's first such action since US President Donald Trump took office in January. Israel has faced mounting international pressure to end its war in Gaza. That scrutiny has increased over flailing aid distribution in Gaza, which Israel blocked for more than two months before allowing a small number of UN vehicles to enter in mid-May. The United Nations, which warned last month the entire population in the besieged Palestinian territory was at risk of famine, said trickle was far from enough to meet the humanitarian needs. 'JUDGED BY HISTORY' "The Council was prevented from shouldering its responsibility, despite the fact that most of us seem to be converging on one view," said France's ambassador to the UN Jerome Bonnafont. Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, said after the Security Council vote he would now ask the General Assembly to pass a resolution calling for a ceasefire. Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon, however, said that the Palestinian plan to put the resolution to a vote at the General Assembly, where no country can veto it, was pointless, telling countries "don't waste more of your energy." "This resolution doesn't advance humanitarian relief and undermines it. It ignores a working system in favour of political agendas," he said. "The United Nations must return to its original purpose - promoting peace and security - and stop these performative actions," Rubio said.
Daily Maverick
13 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Collective environmental governance is our best hope to avert planetary ecological disaster
With mounting global ecological crises, there is a growing need for humans to coordinate their actions across political and geographical boundaries. World Environment Day is celebrated on 5 June to raise awareness about environmental issues and promote action to protect the planet. We often hear and read about individual actions (eg, lifestyle changes, recycling, household solar etc), business initiatives (eg, environmental management systems, supply chain management, environmental, social, and governance — ESG etc), or efforts by governments (eg, environmental legislation, emission standards, carbon taxes, environmental assessment etc). However, comparatively little attention is given to the opportunities and pitfalls of collective action in response to environmental problems, that is, the field of environmental governance and the topic of this article. It is true that humans are part of the environment, but we are the only species with the responsibility to protect it. With mounting global ecological crises, there is a growing need for humans to coordinate their actions across political and geographical boundaries. The burning question is whether humanity's attempts at environmental governance would be sufficient to avert ecological disaster on a planetary scale. The field of environmental management seeks to limit human impact by caring for the Earth and for human life. However, evidence of escalating ecological crises casts legitimate doubt on the adequacy of environmental management systems to control the negative effects of human activities on the environment. Global environmental problems have outgrown the ability of environmental management systems to guarantee sustainability. With the shortcomings of environmental management, the need arose to refer to governance which, at its core, focuses on addressing ' the problem of economic and political coordination in social life '. Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom also observed that the problem of collective action needs to be solved through coordination and cooperation. Norwegian scholar Arild Vatn points out that the emergent field of environmental governance explores how institutions beyond the state, along with a multiplicity of actors, are coordinating in social life in response to environmental problems at various scales. Thinking on how to govern expanding environmental problems has shifted remarkably since the mid-20th century. As these problems — notably the effects of global climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification — became more apparent in the 1980s and 1990s, the need for global collective action and cooperation has also increased. The term global governance implies that not only sovereign states, but ' all kinds of actors might contribute to transnational and international orders, establishing forms of governance even in the absence of an effective world government'. Singular state-directed environmental policies, traditionally through regulations, moved to a ' plethora of different schemes of self-government, public–private partnerships, collaborative efforts, policy entrepreneurs, and participatory initiatives usually gathered under the umbrella term of 'governance' '. Andrew Jordan and his co-authors point out in Public Administration (2003) that environmental governance has been associated with the rise of the 'new environmental policy instruments' (NEPIs), most notably market-based instruments such as environmental taxes and tradable pollution permits, eco-labels and voluntary agreements. Such NEPIs have become more mainstream in the last few decades, but have not completely displaced traditional government-led regulatory instruments. Environmental governance reimagined Environmental problems transgress borders and in response, governments have to negotiate with each other, leading to a series of international environmental agreements (IEAs) — now counting over 1,500 multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and over 2,300 bilateral agreements. Pre-1960 IEAs were dominated by a concern for species, but after the 1960s, pollution and other concerns such as habitat, as well as climate — from the 1990s onwards — became more prominent. In the last two decades, another major shift has occurred in the field of environmental governance. With the limited success of IEAs in reaching their intended effects (with some notable exceptions, such as the Montreal Protocol to protect the Earth's ozone layer) and with mounting evidence of ecological crises on a global scale, traditional multilateral responses to environmental problems are deemed to be insufficient. Scientists published alarming evidence on the inevitable impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018; Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2019) and argued that planetary boundaries are transgressed with possible serious threshold effects. Some scholars now propose an alternative, transformative approach, or a 'swift transformative structural change in global governance' that includes 'effective and decisive governmental action'. The focus in governance in this new emerging approach is ' the dynamics and change in governance systems and the actors therein '. In other words, because of perceived rapid change on a planetary level in which actors form a part, global governance needs to be restructured to support strong and decisive action by governments. By the sheer force of necessity, actors and institutions are swept up in detrimental planetary change, which leaves little freedom to act. The important conceptual shift in such a response is away from a governance system of institutions, rules, or actors towards 'societal transitions', or a type of 'complexity-based governance' where societies are seen to transition to normative long-term goals for sustainability. A kind of governance is required that is both nimble on the feet to respond to change and stable enough to provide the rule of law and a consistent stream of public services. The possibility of non-linear, interacting planetary boundaries therefore pose great challenges to a system of global governance. Proponents of such complexity-based governance concede that one can expect ' less than optimal governance systems for governing CAS [complex adaptive systems] '. What is clear is that, in this view, governance needs not only to be improved, but foremost ' reimagined to better mediate the human environment interface '. However, practical and politically acceptable workable alternatives are not (yet) readily available. My own contribution to the emerging debate on environmental governance is that, whether the coordination in social life takes place through multilateral institutions, rules and actors or through societal transitions and 'complexity-based governance', it must consider the human person as the only species with the responsibility to act. One critical aspect to govern planetary limits in a humane way is recognising the 'other', not only as actors or as part of a society, but as human persons — and acting on that knowledge in seeking universal justice for everyone. In a global world with weaker and indirect relations, a reliable recourse to maintaining justice is necessary for effective collective action. Upholding justice should be a primary concern of environmental governance to avert ecological disaster on a planetary scale. DM Prof Martin de Wit is Academic Head: Environmental Management at the School of Public Leadership at Stellenbosch University.
