Farewell letter from the Ambassador of Lebanon to the Republic of South Africa
To South African Authorities , friends and the Lebanese communities,
As my tenure as Ambassador of Lebanon to the Republic of South Africa comes to an end, I find myself reflecting with deep appreciation on the years I have spent in this beautiful country. It has been a profound honor and privilege to represent my nation in South Africa, and to engage with such a diverse and generous people.
To the South African government and institutions, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for the continuous cooperation, openness, and respect with which I have been received. The relationship between our two countries is grounded in mutual respect, shared values, and a history of solidarity, and it is my sincere hope that these bonds will continue to grow and flourish in the years ahead.
To the Lebanese communities across Southern Africa, I wish to express my deepest admiration. Your commitment to preserving your heritage while fully contributing to Southern African societies is nothing short of inspiring. You have been exemplary ambassadors of Lebanon, upholding our cultural richness, entrepreneurial spirit, and deep rooted sense of family and community. I am proud to have walked alongside you in times of celebration and challenge alike.
During my mission, I have witnessed the strength of bilateral ties, the warmth of our people to people connections, and the potential for even greater collaboration in trade, education, science, culture, and development. I leave with the confidence that these relationships will continue to strengthen under the guidance of my successor and with your ongoing support.
As I take my leave, I carry with me cherished memories, enduring friendships, and a profound sense of gratitude. South Africa will always hold a special place in my heart.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
8 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
It is China that has won the ‘Cold War' in the Middle East
China plans to lead the world through building state, economic and diplomatic capabilities and not through war. (Yuan Hongyan / ImagineChina / Imaginechina via AFP) The latest illegal bombing of Iran by the United States could mean many things for the world if seen through the lens of the ongoing struggle to rebalance global power relations. Obviously in the bigger scheme of things, the US cares as little about Iran than it does about China, which has, in many ways, surpassed America in terms of global power and influence. If the US thought it could lure China, or even Russia into a regional or global war, then it has failed to do so, and will continue to fail. China has no interest in waging a war; it is busy building state, economic and diplomatic capabilities to lead the world. In this sense, China has won the 'Cold War' in Iran/Middle East. The Osiraq option In an analysis paper titled Which Path to Persia? — incidentally, it's dated June 2009 — the Saban Centre of the Brookings Institute lays down the foreign policy options for the Obama administration on how to address the Iran 'problem' which is considered a 'national security' priority. The paper advises the US administration to settle for the Osiraq option, which refers to the surprise airstrike by the It proposes that the Osiraq option is the best option because the US 'might be able to provide a reasonable justification for such a campaign by building on the fact that the UN Security Council has repeatedly proscribed Iran's nuclear enrichment activities in resolutions enacted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which are binding on all member states'. The Osiraq option was chosen because it was less risky in terms of the strategic interest calculus of the US in that region. It also knew that boots on the ground would mean Iraq and Afghanistan 0.2, and the appetite for another prolonged war is very low on the US domestic front. Even Israel could not go the conventional warfare route with boots on the ground; because a full-on invasion by Israel would inevitably force the US to join the war and the situation would be untenable; Iran has capabilities far greater than Iraq. The paper suggests, quite strangely, that unlike a ground invasion, the Osiraq style is not a 'regime change' kind of strategy. A rhetorically erratic Donald Trump had a different idea though. Days after he violated Iran's sovereignty, he posted on his site Truth Social: 'It is not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!' War is the pursuit of politics by other means, namely, violence. Often, 'winning' a war is as pyrrhic for the victor as it is for the conquered. Anyway, the very idea of winning a war is debatable. Others suggest, quite correctly I would say, that there is no winner in war. The strategic intent of countries like the US is not to win the war. It is to weaken the so-called enemies, divide a people and plunder their resources — often through regime change disguised as the protection of''national interests'. The idea is that if you cannot secure your interests through normal means, you must either buy or bomb your way in. Whatever it is, there is always an organising set of interests that inform the pursuit of war. The recent so-called peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda signed in the Oval Office — not on African soil — is a perfect example of the US's global imperialist agenda. By the way, Trump has never set foot in Africa. We also know that the bombing of Iran has obliterated any little respect that was left in the United Nations as a multilateral system aimed at preserving peace and preventing future wars. The bombing was carried out without a UN resolution or US congress authorisation, thus making it a unilateral rogue decision by the US government. It violated Iran's sovereignty and international law in a context where the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed, repeatedly, that Iran is not building nuclear warheads, in the same way that it found no evidence of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq at the turn of the century. Geopolitical 'game of thrones'? The single most important headache for the US today is the re-emergence of China as a strategic power pole in a multipolar world. In both his campaigns for the presidency, Trump made it clear that China is the US's 'main competitor', and one of his former national security advisers, Robert O'Brien, put it better when he said, 'China is the threat of the century.' Trump believes this hook, line and sinker. As I suggested in a recent article, The US, the 'Great Transformation' and the New World Order, the changing balance of global power is characterised by the decline of the US as a superpower, and the rise of China as a significant hegemon while a multipolar world order is in the offing. Much of the disastrous domestic and foreign policy coming out of the White House today is an attempt at dealing with this unstoppable great transformation. The US elite does not have a coherent strategic response yet. The elites in both countries are aware that the decline-rise situation between the two countries gives rise to the Thucydides Trap moment. China knows that it is ahead, while the US knows that it has fallen behind on so many indicators of power. But the US is hellbent on kneeling before the shrine of neocon conceptions of power, so much that it is inflicting a lot of self-harm against the 'national interest'. For its own sake, the US will do well to heed the advice of one of the most hardened conservative Republicans, the late Henry Kissinger, who wrote in his book On China that if not handled properly, US-China relations could mirror the Britain-Germany relations pre-World War II with disastrous consequences for both countries — and obviously, the world as a whole. Kissinger counsels that both countries should seek mutually beneficial relations. It is now evident to everyone that the US has already lost the war on global hegemony and consequently, ceased to be a global hegemon or, at worst, a hyperpower that bullies and dictates to everyone in the world. The latest attempt at stirring a trade war, essentially against China, is a case in point. China remains unshaken. China is playing the long 'game of thrones'. Whether it is the Southeast China seas, Taiwan or Iran tensions, it simply refuses to transform the ongoing tensions into war. It has understood the injunction of Sun Tzu that it is better to win the war without fighting it. The US believes it, too, is playing a long game — the political rhetoric of Trump notwithstanding. In fact, it is Trump and his advisers that defines China as a strategic threat or competitor. Which way for Africa and the Global South? Africa and the Global South must respond strategically in the interests of the vast majority of the people of the world who stand to lose if a major war were to break out. The foreign policy of the US is largely the same in the Middle East and Africa. Without a clear strategic orientation, smaller countries will find it difficult to navigate the current tides caused by the rebalancing of power in the global arena. Some analysis suggests that small countries have no agency, power or even a cost-benefit analysis to make in these high stakes struggles for the rebalancing of global power relations. I think such analysis is grossly mistaken if one considers the role of small countries in World War II or the choice of non-alignment during the Cold War years. There is a lot to lose and gain in a multipolar world for countries in the Global South. The requirement is that they must be strategic, intentional and consolidate on national and regional unity and integration. There are more opportunities in a multipolar setting than a unipolar or bipolar one. The Global South must position itself well to benefit from this world which is struggling to be born. David Maimela is a researcher and writer in public policy with a specialisation on foreign policy and international relations based at Unisa. He writes in his personal capacity.
Mail & Guardian
8 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Farewell letter from the Ambassador of Lebanon to the Republic of South Africa
Ambassador of Lebanon to South Africa Kabalan friangieh To South African Authorities , friends and the Lebanese communities, As my tenure as Ambassador of Lebanon to the Republic of South Africa comes to an end, I find myself reflecting with deep appreciation on the years I have spent in this beautiful country. It has been a profound honor and privilege to represent my nation in South Africa, and to engage with such a diverse and generous people. To the South African government and institutions, I extend my heartfelt gratitude for the continuous cooperation, openness, and respect with which I have been received. The relationship between our two countries is grounded in mutual respect, shared values, and a history of solidarity, and it is my sincere hope that these bonds will continue to grow and flourish in the years ahead. To the Lebanese communities across Southern Africa, I wish to express my deepest admiration. Your commitment to preserving your heritage while fully contributing to Southern African societies is nothing short of inspiring. You have been exemplary ambassadors of Lebanon, upholding our cultural richness, entrepreneurial spirit, and deep rooted sense of family and community. I am proud to have walked alongside you in times of celebration and challenge alike. During my mission, I have witnessed the strength of bilateral ties, the warmth of our people to people connections, and the potential for even greater collaboration in trade, education, science, culture, and development. I leave with the confidence that these relationships will continue to strengthen under the guidance of my successor and with your ongoing support. As I take my leave, I carry with me cherished memories, enduring friendships, and a profound sense of gratitude. South Africa will always hold a special place in my heart.
The Herald
10 hours ago
- The Herald
You should have withdrawn from GNU: Mbeki's open letter to Steenhuisen
Former president Thabo Mbeki has penned a scathing open letter to DA leader John Steenhuisen, saying he would have found it logical for the DA to withdraw from the GNU. Mbeki labelled Steenhuisen and DA federal council chair Helen Zille 'arrogant' after the party's decision to pull out of the national dialogue. In the 11-page letter, Mbeki said it was clear that the DA had serious problems with President Cyril Ramaphosa and the ANC concerning the functioning of the GNU after Ramaphosa removed deputy minister of trade, industry and competition Andrew Whitfield of the DA. 'It is also obvious that despite this you and the DA decided that you will not withdraw from the GNU and it is established that instead with the final straw ... you and the DA have decided not to participate in the national dialogue,' he said. Mbeki criticised Zille's statements that the dialogue was an ANC campaign strategy. He said the dialogue had absolutely nothing to do with Zille's 'fertile imagination of an ANC's 2026 election campaign, or what you called an ANC-run national dialogue'. 'And as you know, Zille, and therefore presumably the DA's view, is that the absence of the latter from the 'Parliament of the People' will make the Parliament 'a sham' and 'a hollow exercise'. It is very good that, at last, Zille has openly expressed her eminently arrogant and contemptuous view of the masses of the people, that these cannot think and plan their future correctly, without the DA. 'That, presumably, is also the view of the federal leader of the DA who must have felt very proud when he announced that effective immediately, the DA will therefore 'have no further part in this process. We will also actively mobilise against it.' I hope that in time the DA will explain to the people why it signed up to the commitment in the statement of intent of the parties in the GNU that parties commit to an all-inclusive national dialogue process, whereas, as Zille said, she had been very opposed to it from the start.' Mbeki said he would like to assure Steenhuisen that representatives of South Africans would attend the dialogue, adding that he was confident the dialogue would make historic and seminal contribution to the efforts to chart a way forward for the country. 'I sincerely hope that all political leaders and the parties they lead will recognise the inalienable reality that the people are our country's sovereign authority ... As I have said I have no doubt that the DA acts against its own direct interests when it decides to isolate itself from its sovereign authority when the latter decides to engage in a national dialogue to determine our countries (sic) future,' he said. He said the national dialogue was borne (sic) out of a 2016 agreement by the FW de Klerk, Thabo Mbeki, Helen Suzman, Desmond and Leah Tutu, Kgalema Motlanthe and Robert Sobukwe foundations who formed the National Foundations Dialogue Initiative with the dialogue as one of its objectives. He said while the ANC had agreed to a national dialogue, he advised the party that civil society would not agree to participate in the process led by the ANC and the GNU, proposing that instead the matter should be led by foundations. Ramaphosa then constituted a group of 4/5 people to engage the foundations, he said. He added that the national dialogue preparatory task team, made up of Nedlac executives, the foundations and four presidency officials, will cease to exist after it hands over the reins to the national convention in August. Mbeki said the ministry of finance should provide the funds necessary to hold the dialogue over and above donations from interested parties. 'In fact, the costs of the preparations to date have been borne by the foundations themselves while the day-to-day work relating to the national dialogue has been carried out by volunteers who are committed to building a better South Africa. These are men and women who are ready to lead the way in ensuring that citizens claim their agency,' he said. He said that the preparatory team believed that various matters would arise during the dialogue which will require action from government without having to wait for the dialogue's conclusion. This, he said, was why Ramaphosa appointed an interministerial committee to be on standby to act on those matters. 'It would seem to me that the DA is also saying that the people have forfeited the confidence to the DA. Perhaps the DA ... should distribute leaflets along the Nelson Mandela Boulevard in Cape Town telling the people that they should redouble their efforts to win back the confidence of the DA or face dissolution,' he said.
