Pete’s blog

What were the central future tenets of South Africa’s foreign policy identified by Nelson Mandela in his articles? Do you think these foreign policy objectives are realistic in today’s world?

 In 1993 Nelson Mandela wrote a piece about South Africa’s future foreign policy. Written prior to South Africa’s first democratic elections and before his election to president, it is very idealistic in nature. His vision was that “human rights will be the light that guides our foreign affairs.” Yet Mandela’s dreams are still very relevant in the real world, even though national interest almost always take priority over lofty dreams. The ANC took Mandela’s dreams as their own, and continue to follow his path. Our successes and failures have refined and added to the initial idea, but the fundamentals remain.

In his piece, Mandela identified six pillars that would define South Africa’s foreign policy:

1. “that issues of human rights are central to international relations and an understanding that they extend beyond the political, embracing the economic, social and environmental;
2. that just and lasting solutions to the problems of humankind can only come through the promotion of democracy worldwide;
3. that considerations of justice and respect for international law should guide the relations between nations;
4. that peace is the goal for which all nations should strive, and where this breaks down, internationally agreed and non-violent mechanisms, including effective arms-control regimes, must be employed;
5. that the concerns and interests of the continent of Africa should be reflected in our foreign policy choices
6. that economic development depends on growing regional and international economic cooperation in an interdependent world.[1]”

These pillars and much of what Mandela wrote in his piece were adopted as official ANC policy. They were first mirrored in the 1994 “Foreign Policy Perspective in a Democratic South Africa” document[2], and the 1996 South African Department of Foreign Affairs foreign policy discussion document attributes a summarised version of these six principles to Alfred Nzo:

1. “a commitment to the promotion of human rights;
2. a commitment to the promotion of democracy;
3. a commitment to justice and international law in the conduct of relations between nations;
4. a commitment to international peace and to internationally agreed-upon mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts;
5. a commitment to the interests of Africa in World Affairs; and
6. a commitment to economic development through regional and international cooperation in an interdependent world.[3]“

Although they don’t always appear in this form, these six pillars are mentioned again and again with regards to foreign policy. By 2003, the six pillars had been added to and refined, and in Minister Zuma’s report to Parliament that year[4], she mentions 15 principles of foreign policy. These 15 principles still follow the 6 pillars, but now mention specific initiatives and programmes. Rather than altering or detracting from the initial 6 pillars, our current foreign policy has refined and added to them.

So our current government still believes that Nelson Mandela’s writings are relevant to today’s world. But what are the criticisms received and the problems we have encountered with the policy, and are the 6 pillars realistic principles to follow?

The sixth and by all appearances, least controversial pillar speaks of “economic development through regional and international cooperation in an interdependent world[5].” Globalisation is one of the most fundamental drivers of current world economic, social and political development, whether for good or bad. Very few people dispute that the only way for a country to survive and grow is to become part of the global economy. South Africa has performed reasonably well in this regard, negotiating trade agreements with Europe and America, and growing its export industries, in particular motor vehicles. In the 10 years since elections, South Africa has changed from an isolated and heavily sanctioned country, to a global player, albeit a small one. But there were lessons to learn here too, the most significant being how to deal with the economic hegemony of the G8 countries. Europe was able to dictate the terms of our trade agreement, because we were negotiating as a single country against an experienced, powerful trade bloc. A regional agreement between SADC and Europe may have been more effective and given South Africa more negotiating power. South Africa has since developed stronger relationships with other similar countries, for example Brazil, and now looks for more regional cooperation in trade talks. Minister Zuma, in her 15 principles, refers to:

• Commitment to economic development through regional integration and development in the Southern African Development Community and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).
• Promotion of the Agenda of the South through South-South Co-operation and North-South Partnerships.[6]

A bloc of developing countries were able to cause a break-down in the current round of World Trade Organisation talks, however it is still too early to tell whether this level of cooperation will be successful in gaining concessions from the G8.

We also faced difficult choices with regards to economic policy, and experienced conflict with the other pillars. In particular the two China debate exposed the problems of an idealistic policy in a realistic world. Mainland China is one of the world’s largest emerging markets and a very significant regional player, however they have a history of human rights abuses and are not a democratic society. Taiwan has a democratic government and a much better human rights record. However, due to the conflict between Taiwan and mainland China, diplomatic relationships can only be had with one or the other, but not both. Support of Taiwan would be the obvious choice if one were following Mandela’s first two pillars, and indeed South Africa maintained relations with Taiwan for the first 3 years of democracy. However economics eventually prevailed, and South Africa switched relations to mainland China. Being a developing country, South Africa was forced to consider their own economic interests first.

The fifth pillar is the promotion of Africa in world affairs. A noble goal and one that Thabo Mbeki has made his own personal dream – the African Renaissance. In Mbeki’s presidency, significant strides have been made with regards to Africa – the NEPAD initiative has taken root, the OAU has become the African Union, which had its first parliamentary session this year, and South Africa has become a vociferous support of Africa internationally. In Africa itself, South Africa has worked as mediator in conflict, helping negotiate peace in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The support of Africa has also moved outside of Africa’s borders, and South Africa is actively building relations with the African Diaspora, as Mbeki highlights in his writings[7].

However, South Africa has had a difficult time convincing Africa of its good intentions. Seen as a regional hegemony, a puppet of the West and a bully, we have learnt to step carefully. The hardest lesson was that of Nigeria. In November 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa and 8 other activists were executed by General Sani Abacha. South Africa had attempted to prevent these executions, and through the use of diplomacy had received assurances that the executions would not happen[8]. When the executions took place, South Africa’s response was to condemn the killings, to call upon the other African countries to impose sanctions, and to withdraw the South African ambassador from Nigeria. But South Africa found themselves standing alone in Africa, and the rest of Africa quickly united behind Nigeria against South Africa’s outspoken criticism. South Africa had broken the unwritten rule of African diplomacy – that of solidarity and quiet diplomacy. A few years later, South Africa is again under criticism for quiet diplomacy, but this time from the other side. South Africa’s lack of action and quiet diplomacy towards Zimbabwe has faced much criticism from local and international players. This time it would appear that the pillars of human rights and democracy are being sacrificed for better African relations. However even as we sit in frustration, hearing continuous reports of human rights abuses and the break-down of democracy, perhaps this approach is the more mature one. As Thabo Mbeki says in a letter “no lasting solution to the challenges that face Zimbabwe can be found, unless that solution comes from the people of Zimbabwe themselves.[9]” This is the very principle of democracy, that people should be free to determine their own fate. It is a difficult and harsh lesson, but in the long term, an important one.

The promotion of peace and the resolution of conflict is the fourth pillar. South Africa has had mixed success here too. Within Africa, we have played a peacekeeping role in Burundi and helped negotiate peace in the DRC. However the initial handling of the DRC conflict and South Africa’s handling of the 1998 Lesotho crisis left much to be desired. Lesotho in particular was seen as overly heavy handed, a 600 strong South African force was sent in to quell what was a small uprising in dispute of election results, but quickly escalated into a small-scale war. South Africa has also been criticised for its arms sales around the world, including regional hotspots like India and Israel. Once again, economic interest overriding moral principles.

Internationally, South Africa has played a strong role in promoting the United Nations and increasing the transparency of the Security Council. The prelude to the 2003 Iraqi war was by far our greatest test. South Africa succeed in making the Security Council hearings on Iraq public, and made continual high level efforts to prevent the conflict, holding discussions with the Iraqis and even sending our own weapons inspectors. Our efforts were in vain, South Africa being far too small to prevent an inevitable war. In hindsight, with the escalating conflict in Iraq, and the continued absence of weapons of mass destructions, our efforts were probably correct. Once again the conflict between the 6 pillars is apparent, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator with an appalling human rights record, yet in order to try and promote peace, South Africa in effect had to take Saddam Hussein’s side. The argument may be similar to that of Zimbabwe, in that the Iraqi people should decide, and not have ‘democracy’ forced upon them by a foreign power. The frustrations South Africa has experienced in its dealing with America and the United Nations is perhaps evidenced by 2 of Minister Zuma’s principles:

• Promotion of multilateralism in lieu of unilateralism to secure a rules-based international system.
• Promotion of the democratisation and reform of the United Nations Security Council.[10]

The third pillar, is one that is in almost all cases in South Africa’s interest to support. Being a small, developing country, South Africa does not have the luxury of ignoring international law. In most cases international law protects smaller countries, and restrains the larger ones. Unfortunately larger countries often ignore international law and do not support an international judicial system. America’s lack of support of the International Criminal Court is a case in point. South Africa has given what it can to support international law, lending our judges (in particular Justice Goldstone) to tribunals, hearings and international courts. South Africa has also changed from a pariah and in many way rogue state, to one that has signed and abides by most international agreements.

The first two pillars, those of human rights and democracy, are the most idealist and most difficult to follow. As shown in the problems faced in following the other pillars, conflict often arises with these two pillars. They are very similar in principle, and it is generally agreed that a democracy is the best form of government to support human rights, and that a country with good human rights will generally form a democracy. Minister Zuma combines them as one principle in her 15 principles. The question is, if supporting human rights and democracy in other countries so often causes conflict with our national interests, why have it in our foreign policy at all? Given South Africa’s history, it might be seen as our duty and obligation to the world, but there is more to it than that. In theory a completely democratic world with good human rights is a peaceful and a happy world. Better and more productive relations can be had with countries that you trust and respect, and so ultimately democracy and human rights are in our national interest. Mandela said that human rights should be our guiding light – we may not always be able to put human rights first, but as long as we are heading in that direction, we are on the right path.

Hard lessons have been learnt and mistakes have been made, and perhaps will continue to be made. Our paths and our leaders have changed, but overall it would appear that our destination is still the same – human rights still guides our foreign affairs. Although we now proceed with greater care and caution, our mistakes have not weakened our resolve, but strengthened it. In the current world fear, intolerance and hatred appear to be all around, and national interest rules decisions. In this world a policy guided by human rights is more difficult to follow, yet more essential to good international relations. Perhaps Africa will be the one to teach the world this lesson, as was the dream of Steve Biko:

“We believe that in the long run the special contribution to the world by Africa will be in this field of human relationship. The great powers of the world may have done wonders in giving the world an industrial and military look, but the great gift still has to come from Africa – giving the world a more human face[11].”

[1] Mandela, N. “South Africa’s Future Foreign Policy” in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No.5, November/December 1993, pg. 87

 [2] Foreign Policy Perspective in a Democratic South Africa, http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/policy/foreign.html, 1994

 [3] South African Foreign Policy Discussion Document, Department of Foreign Affairs, http://www.gov.za/greenpaper/1996/foraf1.htm, 1996

 [4] Zuma, NCD. “Report to Parliament South Africa’s International Relations 2002/03”, 2003

[5] South African Foreign Policy Discussion Document, Op cit.

 [6] Zuma, NCD, Op cit.

 [7] Mbeki, T. “Our international work advances the interests of our people” in ANC Today, Volume 4, No. 4, 30 January – 5 February 2004

 [8] van Aardt, M. “A Foreign Policy to die for: South Africa’s Response to the Nigerian Crisis”, Africa Insight, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1996

 [9] Mbeki, T. “The people of Zimbabwe must decide their own future” in ANC Today, Volume 3, No. 18, 9 ‑ 15 May 2003

 [10] Zuma, NCD, Op cit.

 [11] Biko, S. “Some African Cultural Concepts” in I Write what I like, Heinemann Educational Publishers, Oxford, 1987, pg. 47