Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu
UNDER apartheid, South Africa was dubbed a pariah state. Both locally and globally the apartheid government was accused of violating human rights and ruining the country’s international relations prospects.
As the country prepared for the new political dispensation in the early 1990s following FW De Klerk’s historic speech that liberation movements would be unbanned and their leaders released from jail, South Africa embarked on a new path in global politics.
In this regard, Nelson Mandela wrote a paper titled ‘South Africa’s future foreign policy.’ The thrust of his argument in this document was that South Africa’s foreign policy agenda under the new political dispensation post-apartheid should be anchored on respect for human rights. Mandela pleaded with the global community to embrace this idea. Internally, when the Interim Constitution was crafted in 1993, and when the current constitution was adopted in 1996, Chapter 2 focussed on human rights.
While this was a noble idea, recent developments in relations between South Africa and America have necessitated a relook at South Africa’s foreign policy posture. The decision by the American government to declare South Africa’s Ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, persona non grata raises critical questions about the relevance of South Africa’s foreign policy stance under current geopolitics.
One of these questions is the following: Is South Africa’s human rights approach still relevant today in the global context? Secondly, should South Africa steadfastly hold on to her historic posture since 1994 even at the expense of ruining bilateral relations? Importantly, how should the country strike a balance between global and domestic realities? Does it make sense for the country to stick to its foreign policy stance even if it is going to have serious repercussions for the country?
In trying to answer these questions context is of utmost importance. The reality is that under presidents Mandela and Mbeki, the geopolitics were different from what they are today. Under President Zuma BRICS was one area where South Africa marked her undisputed presence on the global scene. While this was a great move, it also created the country's political adversaries.
Under President Ramaphosa things have changed. The geopolitics have changed. From the bipolar world that was dominated by America and Russia, the world moved to a unipolar world dominated by America alone following the collapse of communism in 1989/1990. Presently, the multipolar world order has descended as America’s hegemony is being challenged.
At the same time, South Africa’s internal and domestic politics have also changed. The ANC’s political dominance has been replaced by a multiparty coalition government comprising ten political parties. Meanwhile, some internal groups such as AfriForum, Solidarity, and Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG) and political parties such as the DA are directly interacting with the Trump administration bypassing all protocol. This has given President Trump the courage to take South Africa on.
While all these things are happening, South Africa’s ‘friends’ within and outside BRICS are silent. Even regional and continental (African) member states which have strong diplomatic ties with South Africa are watching things from a distance. This places South Africa in a precarious position. What should be the country’s foreign policy posture? Should human rights still be the focus?
These questions are necessitated by the fact that some of South Africa’s ‘friends’ such as China are accused of human rights violations. Russia too is accused of human rights violations following the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Parallel to these developments, South Africa took a vanguard position to challenge Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu when the latter continued to kill thousands of Palestinians. South Africa’s decision to take Netanyahu to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was in line with the country’s foreign policy posture which is built on respect for human rights. This is what has annoyed President Trump since Israel and America have strong relations.
Against this background, South Africa must make a firm decision. Such a decision should be based on an honest reflection on the country’s foreign policy stance which must be juxtaposed with the current geopolitical reality.
South Africa currently faces several domestic challenges. These range from unemployment, inequality, poverty, landlessness, high crime rates, water scarcity, poor service delivery, etc. To what extent does the country’s human rights-based foreign policy agenda assist in addressing these and other social challenges? Importantly, how do the country’s bilateral partners assist South Africa in alleviating these challenges? If the current foreign policy posture does not assist in addressing domestic challenges, would it be wise to continue with such a foreign policy orientation?
Since 1994, South Africa has been preaching peace in the global community. It was within this context that the country adopted ‘quiet diplomacy’ in dealing with Zimbabwe and sold the idea of coalition governments in countries like Lesotho, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe, among others.
Following America’s expulsion of Ambassador Rasool, should South Africa avoid returning the favour by expelling America’s Ambassador to South Africa in the name of peace or should the country follow conventional practice when dealing with diplomacy? This point is given substance by the fact that former US Ambassador to South Africa Reuben Brigety undermined South Africa’s political sovereignty on many occasions yet there was no action taken by South Africa against him.
Rasool’s expulsion is an unfortunate incident for South Africa, but it allows the country to revisit its foreign policy stance.
* Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is the Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at the Nelson Mandela University.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.