Like most leaders these days, President Cyril Ramaphosa assumed high office inexperienced in the field of foreign policy. And like many leaders, he will probably emerge as a "foreign policy" president, particularly in the face of SA’s lack of vision and leadership in this field. His political instincts will tell him that SA’s foreign policy must be put back on track after a decade of decline.
For a more effective foreign policy SA must redefine its role in a world that is transforming if it wishes to enhance its global competitiveness, status and respect. This has become a matter of some importance.
Getting SA’s foreign policy back on track will require leadership and vision. As Times columnist Barney Mthombothi pointed out, our foreign policy is "neither fish nor fowl". Policy formulation can no longer be left in the hands of generalist bureaucrats and ideologues, as was the case during the Jacob Zuma presidency. We cannot simply muddle on without a clear understanding of what our national interests require.
Amazingly, our national interests have never been clearly defined and articulated by the Department of International Relations and Co-operation. The fundamental truth is that "foreign policy begins at home", but sadly our foreign policy has barely made a difference to solving our pressing domestic problems.
What is required is a new overarching foreign policy paradigm, one that will serve SA’s innate national interests and take the country forward.
Early positive indications of a new approach to economic diplomacy must become Ramaphosa’s mantra. In a meeting with Japanese officials and business leaders he committed himself to "remove every blockage that anyone who wants to invest in SA will ever find". This followed various encounters with would-be investors in London and Davos when the president was trying to market SA as an investment haven of choice.
In the same speech to the Japanese, Ramaphosa said SA’s annual foreign direct investment had fallen from 24% of GDP to 19%. This indicates that on the global scale of competitiveness the country has slid to the bottom of the pile, being viewed as economically and politically unstable, risk-prone and morally moribund.
In fact, our standing in the global pecking order took a nosedive after the Nelson Mandela era. In Africa, SA has slipped to number three in the economic rankings, and we are no longer playing the vaunted role of continental primus inter pares.
Considering the pitiful state of SA’s economy and dire needs and demands of the poor and unemployed masses, it is clear that Ramaphosa faces a daunting challenge. Fortunately, he realises that SA needs foreign partners to succeed, that our engagement with the interdependent and interconnected world can make a big difference if correctly managed.
Former presidents Thabo Mbeki and Zuma put ideological interests above SA’s economic and security interests with pitiful results, compromising the country’s foreign policy independence, prestige, economic competitiveness and global image in the process.
As a nonpermanent member of the UN security council, SA supported repressive regimes, regularly voting in cahoots with human rights abusers such as Russia and China, proclaiming that promoting human rights was part of a western conspiracy. The country refused a visa to the Dalai Lama at China’s behest, supported the dictatorship in Syria in solidarity with Russia, and afforded succour to Sudan’s genocidal president, Omar al-Bashir.
When he was ANC secretary-general, Gwede Mantashe disdainfully declared that "SA does not need the West". Some parts of the ANC’s official foreign policy document, the Department of International Relations and Co-operation’s ostensible road map, read like a Bolshevist tirade against the "imperialist" West.
After two decades involving massive expenditure, none of these actions and postures has made SA stronger, wealthier or a more successful international role player.
On the contrary, they have moved the country further down the scale of international influence and respectability.
It is a truism that "behaviour begets behaviour". SA’s consistent anti-West policies in the UN were reciprocated in kind when Nikki Haley, US ambassador at the UN, threatened to cut off funding to SA. Although some critics would dismiss this as a transparent effort by the US to corral useful stooges, it would be foolish to underestimate SA’s vulnerability in the context of US economic prowess and leverage. Indeed, SA’s kowtowing to Russian or Chinese preferences poses a similar risk, something the government remains quiet about.
Haley’s remarks resonate with wider western concerns. Rating agencies have incrementally downgraded SA’s economic performance to a dangerous level, while our major trade and investment partners remain apprehensive about the risk of doing business with SA.
It would be naïve to expect foreign investors to fall over themselves to commit money to SA as long as domestic changes come across as tentative, superficial, unconvincing and politically expedient. Ramaphosa intends to reverse the trend by courting foreign investors, and has appointed high-level "economic ambassadors" to do the job. This could also be seen as a strong signal to our bloated and costly foreign service to get its act together and produce meaningful results. Department of International Relations and Co-operation officials are wont to proclaim our foreign policy as a success story, but none of its ringing aspirations outlined in self-serving glossy publications has come to fruition.
The international political landscape has changed dramatically since SA became a democracy almost two-and-a-half decades ago. SA must adapt to the new realities, redefining and modernising its place and role in this new world.
Since 1994 the philosophical paradigm underpinning foreign policy has been dominated by the "heroic" narrative of the antiapartheid struggle, anticolonialism, the North-South divide, western imperialist exploitation, and the like. While these elements deserve a place in the narrative, SA cannot allow its foreign policy to remain stuck in the conditions and policies of yesterday. In terms of the existing paradigm, it still regards international relations as consisting of permanent friends and permanent enemies, a zero-sum game that ignores the interconnected international geopolitical economy while underestimating SA’s potential vulnerability.
Undoubtedly ideological partners such as the Brics grouping are important elements in SA’s foreign policy endeavours. But the Brics phenomenon is also based on an anachronistic "us and them" vision of world politics. It is short-sighted to put all of SA’s eggs in that basket, as the government seems wont to do. SA needs to engage the world in a pragmatic, nonpartisan and inclusive fashion.
In the sub-Saharan African context, prevailing geopolitical, cultural and historical events cannot be ignored. SA cannot abdicate its Afrocentric commitments and identity. However, as the record shows, it has failed to give new purpose, leadership and utility to its "African agenda", as it remains stuck in the politics of yesterday.
The Mbeki-Zuma foreign policy paradigm must be replaced by a foreign policy paradigm based on inclusivity, neutrality, universality and independence, a new holistic vision.
It is important that the moral dimension of our foreign policy, as articulated by Mandela, be resuscitated. "Good international citizenship" should again become our lode star. Under Mbeki and Zuma this policy gave way to moral opportunism and neglect. The protection and promotion of human rights is no longer a touchstone of our foreign policy, having been jettisoned to get along with dictatorships across the world. Along the way, SA has lost respect.
A new foreign policy would convey positive signals and introduce greater optimism at home and abroad about the country’s future. Remaining with the dysfunctional status quo would mean SA would remain an unpredictable, high-risk country, particularly in the eyes of existing and potential economic partners Ramaphosa wishes to attract.
• Olivier, a former South African ambassador to Russia and Kazakhstan, is with the University of Pretoria’s department of political sciences.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.