If you are in the habit of poking bears you should at the very least think things through, especially when the kind of bears you go for are prone to serious toothache.
SA’s decision to go for Israel over its bombing of Gaza is one such act of poking bears. This column is not about the correctness or otherwise of the decision, but whether the SA government thought through its decision. That is, did it consider all the possible effects, implications and blowbacks, a balance that is required by its foreign policy framework?
One possible conclusion of thinking out its decision to go for Israel could have been that once SA came charging before the International Court of Justice, Israel would simply roll over and say: “Come, tickle me”. But a glance at Israel’s history would immediately dispel such folly.
Israel goes to the ends of the earth to find those it deems its enemies. However detestable one may find this to be, it is the reality. Policies, especially those that could cause serious blowback, must be made based on reality, not wishful thinking.
Israel has powerful allies, the most important being the US, where it matters not whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. And the US has a history of pursuing its interests by going for the jugular, even those of its “allies”. It did this to Britain during World War 2.
To survive the war Britain had to strike a Faustian bargain with the US, and by the end of the war its government debt stood at 240% of GDP, including what it owed the US for the use of military equipment it got in terms of a “lend-lease” arrangement.
Then, as the war was ending the US squeezed Britain again to pry open the British Commonwealth markets, around which the UK had built tariff walls. The US also ran rings around a war-weary Britain at the Bretton Woods conference, where the agreements to establish the IMF and World Bank were signed — to make the US dollar the world’s premier currency.
Regarding SA’s charge against Israel, if the “tickle me” outcome was out of the equation, what other possible reactions by Israel and its allies did the SA government consider? If retaliatory steps by Israel and its allies were considered, did the SA dismiss these as highly unlikely? If not, what mitigating steps did the SA government put in place?
The Framework Document on SA’s National Interest and its advancement in a global environment admits that states “pursue interests internationally through their foreign policy and use various methods such as diplomacy, alliance-building, public diplomacy and coercion”. So, SA knew the bears it intended poking may use their claws.
SA’s framework document also calls for a practical pursuit of its national interest in an international environment. It states that a country may be confronted by a seeming clash between elements of the national interest.
“In such instances, it may be necessary to balance these elements of the national interests to achieve the ultimate desired outcomes, as contained in the vision we have for SA, Africa and the world, without diminishing one element materially in the assertion of another.”
The need for this balance clearly comes from SA’s constitution — no right trumps another. It is the need for this balance of interests that brings us back to the question: did the SA government assess how its decision to go for Israel could affect other aspects of SA’s national interests?
Most importantly, did that assessment include the likely reaction of Israel and its allies, and whether that reaction would involve the whole suite of diplomatic methods — diplomacy, alliance-building, public diplomacy coercion (bullying, as Ramaphosa has called it).
SA’s framework document also states that the country’s national interests are premised on the values and ideals of the constitution “and informed by the needs of its people”. These needs include the “eradication of the legacy of apartheid and overcoming the triple challenges of inequality, unemployment and poverty”.
Surely, a country whose state of government finances is the worst in almost 30 years, has such huge socioeconomic backlogs, whose economy hasn’t grown at a pace that’s fast enough for it to generate the resources required to address the backlogs, should think things through before poking bears.
• Sikhakhane, a former spokesperson for the finance minister, National Treasury and SA Reserve Bank, is editor of The Conversation Africa. He writes in his personal capacity.
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.