{"id":234474,"date":"2022-08-18T11:46:59","date_gmt":"2022-08-18T09:46:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myza.co.za\/south-africas-foreign-policy-new-paper-sets-the-scene-but-falls-short-on-specifics\/"},"modified":"2022-08-18T11:46:59","modified_gmt":"2022-08-18T09:46:59","slug":"south-africas-foreign-policy-new-paper-sets-the-scene-but-falls-short-on-specifics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myza.co.za\/press\/south-africas-foreign-policy-new-paper-sets-the-scene-but-falls-short-on-specifics\/","title":{"rendered":"South Africa’s foreign policy: new paper sets the scene, but falls short on specifics"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

South Africa\u2019s international relations department published a document on 1 August setting out the country\u2019s new foreign policy. The outline of South Africa\u2019s national interests<\/a> is an important paper that sets out how the country will relate to the rest of the world for some time to come. <\/p>\n

The title of the document is: Framework on South Africa\u2019s National Interest and its Advancement in a Global Environment.<\/p>\n

Governments are often cautious, for various reasons, about communicating their national interests. This is a first effort by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation<\/a> to contextualise South Africa\u2019s national interests. <\/p>\n

But the document falls short in key respects.<\/p>\n

The first flaw is its title. It speaks of the national \u201cinterest\u201d rather than interests (plural) \u2013 but in international relations there isn\u2019t just one. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s also unclear what practical purpose its drafters envisaged it serving, or who its intended audience is. It\u2019s unclear if it is to guide government policy, direct South African investment, or inform the country\u2019s allies and friends.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not to say that the document has no value. It will be used extensively in future debate and analysis of South African foreign policy. And it may be a guideline for policy.<\/p>\n

Shortcomings<\/h2>\n

Three general points ought to be made.<\/p>\n

Firstly, the document doesn\u2019t have a geographical outline of South Africa\u2019s interests. The business sector will be looking for the importance of specific geographical regions. <\/p>\n

Reading between the lines, Africa seems to be a critically important region for South Africa. But the country, traditionally, has important export interests in Europe. It is the EU\u2019s largest trading partner in Africa. The EU, excluding the UK, accounts for 22%<\/a> of South African trade. Trade with the rest of Africa constitutes 16%<\/a>.<\/p>\n

More recently the BRICS bloc<\/a> \u2013 Brazil, Russia, India, and China \u2013 has become important for South Africa\u2019s national interests. Trade with BRICS constitutes 59% of the country\u2019s imports and 41% of its exports; 94% of this trade is done with China and India and only 2% with Russia<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The war in Ukraine has highlighted the importance of a clear articulation of South African national interests in geographical terms. A lot has recently been said about Pretoria\u2019s diplomatic support for Russia; and the dichotomy between South African support for the Palestinians as the victims, but not for Ukraine. This raises a question as to the guiding principles of human rights in South Africa\u2019s foreign policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Also, how is South Africa\u2019s position on Israel and Russian aligned with its bigger material interests in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe; specifically in terms of trade?<\/p>\n

Secondly, the document\u2019s outline of South Africa\u2019s national interests is stating the obvious. The different interests address the general well-being of society, nothing else. The constitutional order, the safety of society, economic prosperity, a better world are not national interests. They are the general responsibilities of government. <\/p>\n

In short, the outline of the interests is superficial and insignificant. It\u2019s not clear how these interests are to define and direct South Africa\u2019s foreign policy.<\/p>\n

The focus seems to be on domestic interests \u2013 public interests. A better Africa and world is the only interest that is defined within the context of foreign policy<\/a>. <\/p>\n

What are the things South Africa would be willing to deploy its military to protect and defend if threatened? Is the flow of water from Lesotho<\/a> of vital interest to South Africa; and to the extent that it will use military force to protect the access? When is illegal immigration a threat to vital interests, how will citizens know and who is to decide? These questions are left unanswered.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, the outline of the national interest, without the \u201cs\u201d, raises questions as to why government appears reluctant to be explicit. This, at a time where direction is urgently needed in an international order that is increasingly complex. <\/p>\n

Domestic and historical realities \u2013 the eradication of the legacy of apartheid and overcoming the triple challenges of inequality<\/a>, unemployment<\/a> and poverty<\/a> \u2013 seem to be the key drivers, rather than the<\/p>\n

\n

dynamic nature of global and national affairs<\/a> (p.9-13).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The document seems to express the ideological orientation of the ruling elite, more than material interests that ought to drive good governance. It is more of a policy document than a guideline for the practice of diplomacy, military statecraft and trade.<\/p>\n

The document\u2019s objective seems to be to outline how to think about South African national interests, rather than to specify what those interests are. <\/p>\n

The objectives outlined in the document are to:<\/p>\n