- South Africa’s complex diplomacy
- Criticism of inconsistent policies
- Engagement with controversial figures
The foreign policy of South Africa has had a challenging year navigating numerous complex diplomatic initiatives.
It commenced in February 2023 with South Africa conducting joint naval exercises with Russia and China.
In March, the authorities in Pretoria were confronted with a predicament: either execute the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was in attendance at the BRICS Summit that August on suspicion of war crimes pertaining to the Ukraine conflict, or face the consequence of appearing ambivalent towards the rule of law. In the end, Putin’s withdrawal from the summit prevented Pretoria from having to make a decision, following an awkward visit to Ukraine and Russia by several African leaders, led by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The US ambassador to South Africa levied allegations within months that the country had transported weaponry to Russia via the Lady R. Foreign Minister of South Africa, Naledi Pandor, subsequently spoke with Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political secretariat, and travelled to Iran in an effort to bolster ties with the Islamic state. Israel was charged with genocide in South Africa’s Gaza War by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which it had brought before the court by December.
Then, in January of this year, Ramaphosa was criticised for hosting General Mohamed Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, the leader of the Sudanese paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Dagalo has been implicated in human rights violations in Sudan, where the RSF and the army are engaged in a civil conflict.
Critiques of South Africa’s Foreign Policy
All of this, according to critics of Ramaphosa’s administration, demonstrates Pretoria’s inconsistent foreign policy, as the country appears to disregard the human rights records of other nations while swiftly examining those of certain nations.
It is contended that Pretoria’s renunciation of condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its accommodation of RSF commander Hemedti undermine the nation’s professed dedication to principles of justice and equality during the post-apartheid era.
In a recent opinion piece for the local newspaper, the Daily Maverick, Greg Mills and Ray Hartley, analysts at the Brenthurst Foundation, a Johannesburg-based think tank, stated, “South Africa has no principled approach to these global conflicts.” “While claiming to be interested in mediating, it selectively applies its principles in different situations.” Another indiscretion is certain to undermine the propaganda doctoring effort.
An intricate balancing act?
However, certain analysts contend that these criticisms are based on a simplistic understanding of the nation’s foreign policy, which is primarily concerned with Africa and then with ensuring that no single nation wields an excessive amount of global influence. They contend that any perceived incongruities arise from an intricate equilibrium between these goals.
One of them is the author of “Consistent or Confused: An Analysis of Post-Apartheid South Africa’s Foreign Policy” and international relations scholar Oscar van Heerden. Economic interests and historical alliances, among others, he claims, are among the “complex range of factors” that affect the nation’s foreign policy.
“The country’s foreign policy in Africa and the rest of the globe is, in fact, quite consistent. Van Heerden told, “Our founding father, Nelson Mandela, also reminded the world that your enemies are not my enemies, and I believe the country has remained true to that.”
Associate professor of politics at the University of Cape Town, Zwelethu Jolobe, concurs with the seemingly erratic strategy, stating that the nation is “attempting to promote an alternative world order” because of its longstanding conviction in a “multipolar society.
“South Africa acknowledges the intricate nature of the global landscape… “Moreover, for the sake of world peace, multilateral diplomacy is the most effective approach to international relations; this is the foundation of its foreign policy doctrine,” he explained.
Particularly, Hemedti’s visit has proven to be a contentious matter, given that fighting persists between the RSF and the army in Sudan. Human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch have stated, “The RSF has been implicated in a variety of abhorrent crimes, including the forced displacement of entire communities; extrajudicial executions, mass rapes, and torture against civilians are among the most egregious atrocities committed against them.”
South Africa’s Diplomatic Balancing Act
In light of the foregoing, the South African presidency issued the following statement: “Welcomed Dagalo’s briefing and the RSF and Sudan Armed Forces’ mediation efforts towards lasting peace.” Ramaphosa was briefed by Dagalo, who has also travelled to Kenya and Ethiopia, on “efforts made to end this war,” he disclosed to the media.
In reply, the commander of the Sudanese army, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, criticised Ramaphosa and other leaders for hosting Hemedti.
Despite this, some argue that the controversial visit is merely the most recent instance of South Africa participating in peace negotiations as a nonaligned actor on the continent.
South Africa has been actively engaged in numerous peacekeeping missions throughout the continent for an extended period of time. Notably, it currently maintains the sixth-largest contingent among 62 participating countries in the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). Additionally, it is frequently engaged in a range of mediation endeavours, most notably the successful ones that took place between Ethiopia and insurgents in its Tigray region and South Sudan.
Former presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki were esteemed continental statesmen who, throughout the years, facilitated dialogue between opposing factions. The former intervened in a diplomatic resolution involving the United States, Libya, and the United Kingdom; in contrast, his successor acted as a negotiator throughout the initial civil conflict in Ivory Coast.
Now, according to van Heerden, South Africa is once more resolved to “play both sides” because it “does not see things in black and white” in light of past events.
“People can only be brought together in one room after a period of time has passed during which trust has been established,” he stated.
Additionally, Van Heerden refuted the notion that the nation is aligning itself with autocrats. “The world must adapt and change in response to the fact that it is changing,” he stated. “We cannot place all of our eggs in the Western basket; India, China, and Brazil have emerged as new major players.”
“The intricate character of foreign policy”
South Africa has refrained from condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine since the outbreak of hostilities, including its refusal to support a United Nations resolution on the subject. The enduring association between the dominant African National Congress (ANC) and the former Soviet Union, according to a number of analysts, contributes to this.
Then came Ramaphosa’s peace mission to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin separately in June of last year – a trip that the opposition castigated domestically as a “ego trip.” They presented a ten-point proposal during their visit, which included de-escalation, recognition of the sovereignty of both nations, and unimpeded grain exportation via the Black Sea. Ukraine declined the offer.
The manner in which South Africa handled the Russia-Ukraine conflict has perplexed numerous individuals.
Analyst Eusebius McKaiser wrote last May, “South Africa has consistently failed to explain in any substantive way what its doctrine of nonalignment entails.” “The careless application of the term ‘nonaligned’ severely undermines the concept of neutrality or nonalignment.”
After seven months, the conflict continues to this day. Present
ly, the peace proposal of the African leaders, who have been criticised for their alleged bias in favour of Russia, has been largely disregarded.
Van Heerden asserts that South Africa’s stance is a reflection of its desire to “give peace a chance” and to “encourage dialogue rather than taking sides.”
“We are nonaligned, but we are not neutral,” he stated. “We are attempting to bring about peace.”
Regarding the meeting between Pandor and Haniyeh of Hamas, he contends that South Africa is merely “consistent” with its longstanding position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
“We have always advocated for a two-state solution, and we have always supported the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination,” he stated. “Our position has not changed.”
However, critics argue that South Africa’s recent actions have tarnished its reputation on the international stage. They claim that the country’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its apparent support for contentious figures such as Hemedti and Haniyeh are indicative of a departure from its historical commitment to human rights and justice.
As the debate continues, it is clear that South Africa’s foreign policy is subject to scrutiny and analysis from various perspectives. Whether its approach is seen as principled or inconsistent, the country’s actions on the international stage will undoubtedly continue to provoke discussion and debate.
