During Thabo Mbeki’s presidency, I argued on several occasions that South Africa’s confrontational foreign policy towards the United States did not advance our national interests, to which the then-Department of Foreign Affairs essentially responded by saying that this was a lie, and that their US policy was not confrontational at all.

Thus I was intrigued to read the following blog post by Kristen Silverberg, former US Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, someone who would have dealt extensively with South Africa during its term on the UN Security Council:

Whatever the outcome of the General Assembly debate, the U.S. should continue to work to defend and strengthen the international community’s ability to take action under R2P. Columbia Law School professor Matthew Waxman is currently finishing a report for the Council on Foreign Relations, due out this fall, with a number of important recommendations on how the U.S. can move ahead on R2P.

I have one modest suggestion to throw into the mix: The U.S. should make clear that it will not support any country for U.N. Security Council permanent membership without a demonstrated commitment to R2P. This means countries that have worked to shield Burma and Zimbabwe and Iran from international scrutiny need not apply. (Congress should also make clear that this is a requirement of U.S. ratification of any Security Council expansion proposal.) R2P action is challenging enough under the current membership. If the Obama administration is serious about supporting R2P, it needs a Security Council with members fully committed to effective action.

Any guesses which country the bold part refers to? Also, are we to assume that she is the only one in the US State Department who feels this way?