Dr Dlamini-Zuma, South Africa's esteemed foreign minister spoke at school last night - with security checks and the confiscation of water bottles. It would have been an entirely uneventful exposition on the importance of multilateralism, had the London-based Zimbabwe lobby not intervened in spectacular style. First one, then another, rose in the audience and pleaded for increased South African intervention with Mugabe. DZ sat down while 10 minutes of shouting, ejections and arrests ensued. I admired her grace under fire but couldn't help noting the contradiction between her speech and her response to subsequent Zimbabwe questions. While her speech focused on the key role of the UN and the international community in pressuring the aparthied regime, she seemed intent on emphasising the internal nature of the democratic transition (the ANC made the miracle happen). I'm not sure if this interpretation reflects more the propinquity of ANC struggle leaders to the transition, or a retrospective reading to rationalise their public passivity in the face of domestic problems in other African countries (ie: Zimbabwe).

She lamented that it took 40 odd years for UNGA initiatives to take effect, but then implied that this was the correct approach for the international community to take (it all turned out ok in the end so the technique was justified). By deduction, the UN should satisfy itself with empty UNGA resolutions on Darfur and leave the real resolution to the Sudanese themselves. A familiar recitation of G77 pro-sovereignty arguments if ever there was. I'd be very interested for the Minister's views on how this should apply in cases like Rwanda or Bosnia where conflict situations are not blessed with the negotiating tact of the ANC. And for that matter how South Africa will embrace the Responsibility to Protect ('R2P') concept in its coming Security Council deliberations. I suspect at heart the government agrees with R2P - at least intellectually. In practice it will always be difficult to implement - particularly if the implementation falls to contigous countries.

DZ's best joke was her response to a question on why South Africa's parastatal arms industry continues to export arms. With a slightly sanctimonious air she noted that "we only sell arms if we are sure that they won't be used against people in war." Explosive laughter and applause to that!

She dealt with questions on HIV/AIDS tactfully and gave a concise explanation of Thabo Mbeki's views on the matter (deal with the disease as part of the battle against poverty, not seperate to it - an intellectual excess when faced of a national health crisis I would have thought).

At the close a calm-mannered Zimbabwean human rights lawyer valiantly attempted to differentiate himself from his more combative countrymen. He asked a respectful question about land reform in South Africa. To his clear frustration this was a cue for the white Zimbabweans in the audience to interject and reiterate their complaints about South Africa's quiet diplomacy. Two things were obvious - a) the Zimbabwean people's cause is done no service by allowing itself to be taken over by the gripes of expatriate white Zimbabweans (their rude interjections over the top of the mild mannered questioning of a highly educated black lawyer acted as neat metaphor for the old Rhodesia) and b) South Africa has shaped its own historical narrative to fit the policy of quiet diplomacy - and nothing's going to change that in a hurry.

I will be interested to see how the eventful evening is covered in the SA press.