Letter from Pretoria:Just a few weeks into its inaugural posting to the United Nations Security Council, South Africa has quickly made its mark - but not necessarily for the right reasons.
Its first vote as a non-permanent member of the 15-state body has been to side against the United States, the UK and other supposed western allies in rejecting calls for stronger action against human rights abuses in Myanmar.
Voting down a resolution demanding political reforms, an end to forced labour and the unconditional release of the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, South Africa joined China and Russia in arguing that the issue should be put back to the UN's human rights committee as it did not affect "international security".
The move has raised eyebrows in diplomatic circles and drew condemnation from no less a figure than Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
"If others had used the arguments we are using today when we asked them for their support against apartheid, we might still not have been free," the South African Nobel laureate said, describing the vote as "a betrayal of our own noble past".
Human rights organisations believe that South Africa was influenced in the vote by China, which has forged close economic ties not just with Myanmar but with a host of African states, including South Africa and neighbouring Zimbabwe.
US diplomatic sources fear that it could be the start of a shift in South African allegiances away from Washington, with one such source telling The Irish Times that the US government had an "itchy feeling" about the vote.
Pretoria has already raised concern in the US by siding with Iran over that country's plans to develop nuclear energy and by its continuing silence over human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. A sign of strained relations came late last year when the newly-appointed US ambassador to Pretoria complained of "lack of access" to South African government ministers despite the US spending €70 million on HIV/Aids prevention in the country.
While South Africa is a member of the international non-aligned movement, it has traditionally been one of America's closest allies on the African continent.
J. Brooks Spector, a former US diplomat now attached to the South African Institute for International Affairs, said: "The US government looks to South Africa as a partner for security in the region. That may be why there is some quiet sighing . . . or lack of pleasure at the low-key way South Africa is tackling Zimbabwe." On the Myanmar issue, he noted: "I cannot imagine anyone in the US government feeling happy about that vote . . . where there would be concern is if other votes start showing a pattern."
Larry Benjamin, a Johannesburg-based diplomacy analyst, said that South Africa's foreign policy decisions often seemed to be "based on expediency rather than on principles".
He added that a key factor was South Africa's desire "not to be seen to be acting on behalf of the US", especially at regional forums where democratic governments are in the minority.
A major test will come next week, when African leaders decide on whether to hand Sudan - another close ally of China - the chair of the African Union.
Although the US has publicly stated that the matter is one for African governments, it is expected to put pressure on South Africa to block the appointment because of the Sudanese regime's atrocities in Darfur.
