Even though it has yet to finalise its policies through its medium-term development plan, the new Government of National Unity (GNU) has set out three priorities: inclusive growth and job creation; reducing poverty and tackling the high cost of living; and building a capable, ethical and developmental state.
Whether these priorities are realised will depend on the nature of the domestic reforms that are implemented, combined with a clearly outlined and consistently executed foreign policy.
Twelve days after his appointment, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, laid out the government’s foreign policy for the next five years at a symposium with the South African Institute of International Affairs.
As expected, no new policy shift was announced. Instead, he made clear the government’s intention to continue pursuing a foreign policy agenda anchored in human rights, respect for the rule of law, and the national interest, among others.
Continuing on the same agenda was a sensible decision as the actual objectives of South Africa’s foreign policy agenda have not been a problem. The problem, especially in recent times, has been about how to go about achieving them — that is especially the case when it relates to the question of how best to further the nation’s economic interests, which, for some reason, seemed to recede further and further as a priority in the latter years of the previous government administration.
Undoubtedly, for the president’s foreign investment drive to have any success, this has to change. New trade relations will need to be explored and existing ones will need to be deepened in pursuance of the national interest. Fostering old trade relations and developing new ones, especially in the face of an increasingly uncertain global world order, will require a nimble approach, one that strictly adheres to the principle of non-alignment — a principle the country’s political actors have readily understood but, in recent years, failed to properly execute.
Non-alignment: its genesis
Non-alignment has its origins in the Cold War. It emerged from a forum of countries, collectively known as the Non-Aligned Movement, that did not want to align themselves distinctly to either the United States or the Soviet Union because doing so, they believed, would have limited their abilities to form, maintain or further economic relations with nations on either side of the geopolitical divide.
Given the development needs of these states and the minimal role they could play in an international order dominated by two superpowers, this was a reasonable posture to adopt.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, which brought down with it the bipolar world order, it was widely expected that the Non-Aligned Movement would follow. That expectation was made within reason as democracies and free markets were spreading across the world like never before, trade between the previously rival blocs expanded rapidly and, for the first time, the US faced no near-term rivals for global supremacy and influence.
If ever there was a point in modern history where one power dominated world politics, it was during that period.
That period was short lived, however, due to the emergence of China as a superpower two decades later. China’s quest to challenge the US for pre-eminence has fashioned a new geopolitical divide in the world, a divide that has revived the same conditions that gave rise to non-alignment as a strategy in the first place.
Perception is everything in politics
For non-alignment to be effective, a state needs to readily evaluate its own conduct to ensure that there is consistency in its actions. More crucially, it needs to have an objective reading of global geopolitics.
On the whole, this has been appreciated by successive South African governments. But, in the instances where it has not been, the errors have been glaring.
One particular incident was the government’s decision to conduct joint military exercises with Russia in February of last year. Such exercises are commonly performed by and between countries, so that was not the issue here. The issue was twofold.
One, was the timing: the exercises were held on the first anniversary of the Russian war in Ukraine. The other was that they were carried out even after the government had taken a non-aligned position on the war and had made repeated offers to act as an impartial peace broker.
It goes without saying that those in the West, particularly the US, were not pleased at all, mainly because South Africa was viewed to have talked left and walked right, thus failing to adhere to its stated posture of non-alignment.
Following that episode, and other events, a bipartisan bill was tabled before the House of Congress in the US calling for a full review of the country’s bilateral relationship with South Africa. If the bill is passed, it may potentially threaten the country’s eligibility for trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa).
Almost immediately after the bill was tabled, the government abandoned its initial defence of the decision to participate in the exercises and it has since made numerous overtures to representatives in the US Congress to oppose the bill.
Whether the bill passes or not will depend on a few factors, but most important of all will be which party assumes control of the Congress in the upcoming election. If it is the Democratic Party – which still values the US’s relationship with South Africa – the chances are slim, but the same cannot be said if it is the Republican Party, which, incidentally, introduced the bill.
If it is passed, the same set of variables would apply regarding whether or not any subsequent action would be taken by the US executive against South Africa.
The whole sequence of events was unnecessary and avoidable. Until now, it is still difficult to understand why the previous administration would have risked the country’s economic interests over a matter that it firstly had no influence over, and secondly, stood nothing to gain from through its participation.
The one lesson the new administration should take from this debacle is that what you say and what you do afterwards do matter. It must be understood among our diplomatic corps that special attention has to be paid towards how the country conducts itself in the international arena, as it can ill afford any actions that may disrupt the reform agenda.
From one BRICS partner to another
If there is any lingering confusion about how to utilise non-alignment effectively, or about its benefits, the government need only look towards its fellow BRICS partner, India, to see how it has strategically used the approach to fully maximise its trade relations with other states, to the extent that merchandise exports today are valued at $451-billion, up from $314-billion a decade ago, while foreign direct investment has increased in that same period from $26-billion to $71-billion.
India’s status as a non-aligned country is interesting for two reasons. The first is the size of both its economy and population relative to other non-aligned countries. Ordinarily you would expect a country of that size and economic clout to conduct itself as a world power.
The second reason – which is linked to the first – is that India has resisted attempts from the US for it to act as a counterweight to China. It does so despite its ongoing tensions with China over a long-standing border dispute and an inevitable battle for regional supremacy. India chooses to do so because it is aware that aligning itself explicitly with the West may negatively affect its economic developmental agenda.
The example set by India should serve as a blueprint not only for South Africa, but any emerging market seeking to develop its economy through foreign trade. South Africa should not struggle to emulate this example because, unlike India, it is not a major player in world affairs.
A revival of fortunes?
The new GNU has renewed international investors’ optimism towards the country’s long-term economic outlook. South African stocks have experienced the strongest quarter in 11 years, while the FTSE/JSE Africa All Share Index has increased by 10% in the past three months. That is notwithstanding the nearly R100-billion in foreign direct investment inflows the country obtained in 2023.
All of these numbers provide a clear signal that South Africa remains an attractive investment destination for foreign investors. As such, there exist real opportunities for the country to take advantage by expanding existing trade relations with partners across the geopolitical divide, thereby potentially increasing foreign direct investment and also gaining access to concessionary loans from development institutions such as the US International Development Finance Corporation to address the infrastructure gap in roads, electric grids and ports, among others.
Renewed optimism brings with it new opportunities. Can the GNU capitalise on these opportunities? It certainly can, but to do so it must be pragmatic and resolute in pursuing the nation’s economic interests at every turn.
And the only way it can do so within the new bipolar world order is by staying true to its non-aligned approach. DM