GERRIT OLIVIER: The ANC’s Potemkin foreign policy has left SA without a paddle

According to our new foreign minister, Ronald Lamola, ‘‘non-alignment and universality will remain sacrosanct’’ as part of SA’s foreign policy. He also confirmed that “our foreign policy is anchored in our history of solidarity with those struggling against oppression ... we need to double our efforts to work in solidarity with those who are resisting occupation, oppression, human rights abuses and injustice”.

These words resonate with Nelson Mandela’s proud vision of a democratic SA taking up its rightful place on the global stage, but unfortunately they soon became a casualty of ANC policy after he had left. As the policy strayed badly under his successors SA lost its moral compass and credibility in favour of a policy of subservience to Russo-Chinese ideology and rabid anti-Westernism.

Lamola’s assertion that nothing has changed in SA’s “sacrosanct” foreign policy is therefore contestable. The changes that have in fact occurred have left their mark, and SA continues to pay the price. Indeed, much of the initial international goodwill has been wasted as SA paid the price of expediency and inconsistency, particularly of phoney non-alignment. Over the past three decades SA foreign policy has degenerated into a humiliating spectacle within the society of nations as its image, credibility and influence suffered and declined.

In a recent article in The Economist our foreign policy was depicted as “clueless and immoral — at risk of becoming a laughingstock”. As chapter 7 of the National Development Plan  (NDP) noted, the department of international relations & co-operation’s elaborate bureaucratic infrastructure falls short when it comes to successful/credible diplomacy in critical areas. In some respects the department’s new “nice guy” image and role reminds one of the proverbial Potemkin Village, an elaborate façade lacking universality, critical substance and effectiveness.

During the Thabo Mbeki presidency, former foreign minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma praised the virtues of “silent” diplomacy, especially when dealing with African dictators ruling the roost in countries such as Zimbabwe. China and Russia, both notorious human rights oppressors, enjoyed special relations with SA, and co-membership of Brics, propagating the influence of the Global South in a multipolar word.

At the UN it dutifully followed Russian and Chinese instructions and opposed Western resolutions. Cosy relations with Ethiopia’s Mengistu Haile Mariam, Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Cuba’s Fidel Castro have characterised our foreign relations under all presidents since Mandela. No questions of human rights abuses of fellow Africans, Russians or Chinese were asked. These were questions for the Global North to answer. 

More recently the ANC has publicly added respect for international law as one of the touchstones of its foreign policy. This indeed reflects the provisions of the SA constitution embodied in sections 231, 232 and 39, and is implicit in the foreign policies of non-authoritarian states. Using principles as a red herring to silence critics of SA’s rudderless foreign policy, frequent reference was made to SA’s stance as a non-aligned state.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is an international organisation that refuses to be officially aligned with or against any major power bloc (group of states). SA justified its abstention from voting against notorious human rights abusers such as China and Syria in the UN General Assembly as being in line with the dictates of being a non-aligned state. 

However, things changed when it came to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, the latter enjoying close historical ideological and emotional ties with SA’s liberation movement. Here SA opted not to broker a peace deal as it claimed to do between its ally Russia and Ukraine (albeit unsuccessfully), but rather resorted to megaphone diplomacy by accusing Israel of genocide before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Let us forget for a moment the other possible concurrent genocides taking place in African states, notably Sudan. SA’s history of protecting former Sudanese president Bashir, a war criminal, from International Criminal Court prosecution bears reference. In fact, SA threatened to withdraw from the treaty that established the court, claiming it unjustly targeted African leaders, and subsequently terminated diplomatic relations with Israel. 

SA’s renewed belief in the credibility of international institutions bloomed with the extremely expensive and high-profile case brought against Israel before the ICJ. This was internationally acclaimed as a vote of confidence, strengthening faltering international institutions that lack the power to take binding decisions and bring perpetrators to book. Without going into the details of the deals that went on behind closed doors that made this application possible, it was seen as a brave and principled stance to uphold international law.

This is what Lamola referred to when he took over from Naledi Pandor after the May elections. What he overlooks is that international law is not based on a pick-and-mix approach. Rules of customary international law are shaped by general state practice and not a selective application to punish old enemies and turn a blind eye to others, especially when the optimal outcome for SA will not result in the attainment of a peaceful settlement, freeing the hostages taken by Hamas and protecting civilian populations while weakening the “apartheid state” of Israel and empowering Hamas.

Ironically, it was reported last week that Libyan soldiers have been trained in SA. It is almost impossible to imagine that this occurred without some official knowledge. Gone is the non-aligned principle of not speaking out against the bombing of children’s hospitals. SA is only non-aligned when it comes to its authoritarian partners. This is neither in furtherance of human rights nor of international law and universality, nor is it non-aligned. 

Anti-Westernism is demonstrably a key part of the ANC foreign policy, but it is extremely risky. The US is not convinced of the veracity of  the ANC’s so-called non-aligned stance and has come out against it. It is particularly concerned that SA relations with Russia, China and Iran undermine US security interests, leading the House of Representatives to pass a resolution on the African Growth & Opportunity Act (Agoa), with a handsome majority, for final consideration of the Senate and president. The act gives designated products from Sub-Saharan African countries preferential access to US markets.

Trade, industry & competition minister Parks Tau said last week after returning from Washington, where he attended the Agoa Forum and engaged with US legislators, that he was confident SA would continue to be included in Agoa, and that SA and the US had also agreed to revive the bilateral trade and investment framework agreement governing trade relations between the two countries.

However that pans out, SA must choose between ideology and national interests. On one hand, given the importance of Agoa for both sides it is doubtful that the US will resort to extreme reprisals. On the other, given the US strained attitudes towards China, Russia and Iran, as well as the present mood in its domestic politics, SA will have to make some concessions.

Realistic politics demand that SA should be on neither side of the divide, East or West, but rather follow a credible policy of  pragmatic transactional equidistance to reclaim its status and respectability as a global role player.  

• Olivier, a former SA ambassador to Russia and Kazakhstan, is professor emeritus at University of Pretoria.