London - The year 2023 is fast becoming a defining year for democratic South Africa’s foreign policy and the future direction of its international relations.
In February, South Africa, in its capacity as chair of BRICS for 2023, hosted the first meeting of the group in Bela Bela, while on March 2 the country assumed its seat on the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva for the period 2023 to 2025.
Whether by choice or forced geopolitical circumstances or driven by the ideological factionalism and contradictions within the governing ANC government’s stance, especially relating to the US, EU, Russia and China, it is too early to say whether this is merely the product of a confused and perceived aberrant foreign policy or a potential game changer away from the neo-ethical foreign policy principles espoused by Nelson Mandela.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that about 30 years ago Madiba, in an article in the influential Foreign Affairs magazine, set out “South Africa’s Future Foreign Policy” in which he asserted that it would be guided by “a commitment to human rights, promoting democracy, justice, peaceful resolution to conflicts, and economic co-operation as core principles”.
Fast forward to August 1, 2022, at the Department of International Relations and Co-operation Conference Centre in Pretoria when Minister for International Relations, Dr Naledi Pandor, addressing the catch-all “Symposium on the Framework Document on South Africa’s National Interest and its Advancement in a Global Environment”, set out the enabling ethos of Pretoria’s evolving foreign policy “in an increasingly complex global context in which challenges, alliances, interests and commitments exist on shifting sands”.
The new kid on the block is “national interest”.
Nevertheless, the framework document is refreshingly pragmatic, reflecting a realpolitik mindset and a recognition of the limitations of Pretoria’s global influence. “The values, principles and socio-political and socio-economic ambitions in our Constitution,” she maintained, “are the key foundations for our national interest, which are closely associated with our history of anti-colonial and anti-apartheid Struggle.
“We are part of a nation that has waged a mighty battle for freedom under the throes of oppression, and our experience has resulted in strong bonds being established with all who strive for freedom. Our ideals of pan-Africanism, progressive international solidarity and Ubuntu underpin our national interest.”
Dr Pandor agrees that as Pretoria seeks to promote South-South relations, it is alert to the reality that interests may not always coalesce.
More pertinent and perhaps unlike many of her international partners, South Africa has institutions, laws and democratic practices which create the basis for the country to be a force for good in Africa and in other parts of the world.
“While we are careful not to be naive in our belief in our ability to influence others, we do think these instruments are an important part of nation formation that we could share with nations in transition to democracy. The democratic transformation of South Africa, while not perfect, forms an important platform for entrenching good governance, democracy and development,” she asserted.
The question remains: Are Dr Pandor and the ANC recalibrating yet another red line of Madiba’s policies – this time a deviation from his human rights-cum-promotion of democracy-cum-values-based foreign policy as espoused in the ANC’s “Foreign Policy Perspective in a Democratic South Africa” of December 1, 1994?
Only to be replaced by a reverting to a notion of national interest which is as comprehensive as it is potentially confusing and contradictory, as if the ANC is still behaving as if it were a national liberation movement powered by cadre deployment and an anachronistic obsession with international solidarity.
The narrative of Ramaphosa and his ministers since he took office in 2018 is based on a mix of “South Africa’s economy has underperformed for many years.
Several long-standing structural impediments continue to hamper growth”, the spectre of the “legacy of apartheid” and buckets full of rhetoric of aspirations. Is this infusion of national interest an extension of the legacy of apartheid into the country’s foreign policy paradigm?
Madiba’s idealism for South Africa, the continent and the world was based on the notion of “Peace at Home, Peace Abroad” and “Freedom at Home, Freedom Abroad”.
But above all, it was driven by the clarion call of “Democracy at Home, Democracy Abroad”, albeit even Madiba had a few foreign policy faux pas during his presidency.
South Africa, like many other developing countries, has every right to be incensed by the unprecedented and chauvinistic action of the US House of Representatives which adopted a draft bill intended to punish African countries that have not toed the line on the Russia-Ukraine war.
“How do developing countries exercise their sovereign rights as UN member states when confronted by such reactions?”
Dr Pandor rightly asserted. This is a blatant case of national extraterritoriality gone too far, as an extension of the various Patriot Acts post-9/11.
The delay in the roll-out of Covid-19 vaccines to Africa, the ongoing vaccine inequality, the non-honouring of promises of fair trade rules including pertaining to South African citrus products to the EU, the broken pledges on climate action and finance, and failed commitments towards financing the billions of dollars of gaps in infrastructure and other projects related to achieving the UN SDG Agenda are all manifestations of the shabby treatment and lip service the global wealthy nations continue to mete out to developing countries.
The naivety and implicit danger are for South Africa to sleepwalk into a foreign policy trajectory based on a self-styled pan-Africanism which failed to meaningfully take root as a movement even in South Africa during apartheid, and on a tenuous notion of international solidarity given the manifold current political and socio-economic poly-crises which have forced countries to compete against each other for foreign direct investment, concessionary funding, grants and other favours.
The only current attempt of note at multilateralism is the BRICS bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – a curious mixture of bedfellows ranging from flawed democracies to authoritarian-cum-to-talitarian regimes.
There is talk of expanding the membership of BRICS to include Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy), Türkiye (an autocracy), Indonesia, Argentina (both flawed democracies) and a host of potential other countries.
The fear is that with Russia and China dominating, BRICS might degenerate into a club of authoritarianism, anti-West and anti-democracy, as both Beijing and Moscow espouse their contempt of and devaluation of democracy as a system of governance.
Dr Pandor must be careful not to alienate the wealthy global democracies, which not only include the West but also Japan and South Korea.
Despite the history of colonialism and their continued domination of the global financial system, trade structures, capital ownership and foreign direct investment flows, Pretoria is too aware of which side its bread is buttered.
The $8.5 billion commitment by the US, EU and UK to South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership is a case in point.
What separates them and South Africa, warts and all, from Russia and China is their steadfast commitment to democratic values.
This is why Pretoria, in tandem with seeking a peace based on negotiations, should not have shirked its responsibility of calling out the invasion of Ukraine for what it is, instead of kowtowing to the delusions of the Kremlin.
By doing so, Dr Pandor’s shift to a national interest-based foreign policy could undermine South Africa’s constitutional democratic values.
For Madiba, freedom, peace and promoting democracy trumped national interest! The two sets are not necessarily mutually inclusive. The minister cannot have her cake and eat it!
Parker is an economist and writer based in London
Cape Times
* The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.