Op-eds

Misinterpreting non-alignment — South Africa’s firm stance against geopolitical bias

5 Nov 2024

It is critical to understand the difference between neutrality and non-alignment in foreign affairs, says the writer, who is spokesperson for South African Foreign Affairs Minister Ronald Lamola.

As Kwame Nkrumah once said, “we face neither East nor West; we face forward”. This sentiment not only encapsulates but also reaffirms South Africa’s unwavering commitment to non-alignment, a central tenet of our national foreign policy.

This commitment is a testament to our independence and our dedication to making decisions that serve our national interests, that of the continent and the wider developing world.

Non-alignment is a strategic approach to navigating the polarities and complexities of international relations, and to this day, the Non-Alignment Movement’s Heads of State and Government Summit’s Durban Declaration of 1998 remains instructive. For a country grappling with high rates of inequality, poverty and unemployment, it is crucial not to pin its interests solely on one side of the geopolitical spectrum.

However, it is astounding that even prolific foreign policy voices, such as Ray Hartley and Greg Mills, often misinterpret South Africa’s non-alignment as mere neutrality.

Their latest opinion piece in Daily Maverick goes further, asserting that South Africa’s foreign policy is not just non-aligned, but misaligned with the country’s Constitution. This misinterpretation does a disservice to the complexity and nuance of our foreign policy.

Hartley and Mills are affiliated with the Brenthurst Foundation, which lends significant credibility to their work. Articles from the foundation often appear in Daily Maverick.

The foundation boasts an impressive roster of advisory board members and associates, including former presidents and high-ranking officials from various countries. This association undoubtedly enhances the perceived authority of their opinions.

Naturally, it raises the question of whether these luminaries align with the narratives that Hartley and Mills present in the name of the Brenthurst Foundation.

Historical context

South Africa’s foreign relations cannot be understood without considering its historical context. The continent’s history of colonisation and imperialism has naturally influenced the new societies constructed post-liberation.

The approach of determining our own future has its roots at the Asian-African Conference held in Bandung in 1955 by newly independent Asian and African states who decided to form the Non-Aligned Movement to advance our own interests, independent of those of the major powers.

South Africa’s historical ties with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which included Ukraine, and the German Democratic Republic (“East Germany”), are part of this context, and recognising and honouring these ties does not imply an anti-Western stance. Our Struggle enjoyed the solidarity of peace-loving people in the world, both in the East and the West.

As a matter of fact, the Anti-Apartheid Movement was the biggest solidarity movement in human history and it comprised people from all corners of the world, irrespective of whether their governments supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement or not (as is being seen today, in many Western countries, it is the people rather than their governments which support the rights of marginalised, colonised and occupied people).

Russia and Ukraine

The South African government has made its position clear in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Our progressive internationalism outlook necessitates an approach framed on the peaceful resolution of conflict in a world on the brink of a polycrisis.

It also requires us to look beyond the historical fact that some Western countries supported the apartheid regime in the interests of developing our nation.

South Africa, with its historic ties and ongoing strong bilateral relations with both Russia and Ukraine, has used these connections to advance an anti-war, pro-peace proposition. Post-apartheid South Africa has consistently advocated for a peaceful resolution of conflict.

This stance has at its roots the call in the Freedom Charter that “South Africa shall strive to maintain world peace and the settlement of all international disputes by negotiation – not war.”

The country’s participation in the Ukraine Peace Formula and the recently formed Group of Friends at the UN General Assembly in New York reflects its commitment to peace. These initiatives resonate with the intention of the African Peace Initiative.

One element that African leaders committed to in the African Peace Initiative was addressing humanitarian issues, including releasing prisoners on both sides and returning children. In this context, South Africa has agreed to work with Qatar and the Holy See to engage with both parties to the conflict regarding the return of children.

We will continue to seek avenues and partner with those that aim to end the war peacefully and ease the humanitarian situation.

Non-alignment vs neutrality

The multifaceted landscape of international relations regularly sees the dichotomy of non-alignment and neutrality, with each embodying distinct philosophical and practical implications.

With the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement, non-alignment emerged as a significant doctrine during the Cold War. The term “non-alignment” denotes a proactive strategy in which a group of countries decide not to align with any major power groups, be they Western or Eastern.

Instead of conforming, they strive to pursue their interests and actively establish their position in the global arena, reassuring the world of their active role in shaping the global order.

This proactive stance ensures that countries that are non-aligned are not mere spectators, but active participants in shaping the global order by advancing the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement.

In contrast, neutrality represents a policy characterised by abstaining from involvement in international conflicts and maintaining a stance of impartiality that does not favour any participant, regardless of the circumstances at play.

Neutrality, in essence, can often be perceived as a passive approach to global affairs, where nations side-step the complexities of international confrontations to preserve their internal tranquillity. It is important to understand these distinct approaches to foreign policy to appreciate the nuances of global affairs.

Grasping the crucial disparity between these two paradigms is vital for comprehending their implications for diplomacy. Non-alignment is about decision-making that reflects a nation’s aspirations and objectives. It empowers countries to navigate the intricate and often conflicting interests that characterise international politics, free from the entanglements associated with dominant power narratives.

In contemporary geopolitics, where power dynamics are evolving, non-alignment offers a framework that upholds the principle of state sovereignty while promoting collaborative partnerships built on equality and mutual benefit.

Unprecedented challenges

Non-alignment encourages principled and proactive engagement to establish an equitable global order. This approach becomes increasingly vital as the world faces unprecedented challenges where geopolitical divergences often result in a zero-sum game.

When envisioning the future of global diplomacy, non-alignment emerges as a rational strategy for nations striving to fulfil their constitutional obligations while preserving their agency in an intertwined world.

To assert that non-alignment equates to neutrality, one must examine the 10 principles in Bandung and demonstrate how these principles, which include respect for fundamental human rights and nations’ sovereignty and territorial integrity, reflect a progressive and active stance.

Interestingly, one can draw connections between these principles and South Africa’s constitutional framework and liberation history. This connection underscores South Africa’s commitment to South-South solidarity and steadfast opposition to colonialism while advancing North-South partnership.

In a global context marked by increasing insecurity and the military expansion of various superpowers, overlooking the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty is perilous. We have advanced these principles in multilateral fora, including at the United Nations, and directly to President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Vladimir Putin.

Western Sahara and Palestinian territories

Inaction is unacceptable when new and old forms of colonisation undermine the right to self-determination of Palestinians and the Sahrawis. The principle of non-alignment fosters cooperation, engagement, and vigorous diplomacy. A non-aligned position respects a nation’s territorial integrity and political independence.

South Africa has consistently called for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, reinforcing the idea that every nation’s right to choose its path is paramount.

The issue of Palestine should be analysed through the appropriate historical framework established by non-alignment principles. This perspective is part of the larger effort to dismantle colonialism, oppression and occupation in the Palestinian territories, emphasising the critical role that the United Nations must play in these struggles.

Ultimately, it is crucial to acknowledge that non-alignment and neutrality are two distinct poles in international relations. Understanding these differences will help foreign policy writers interpret South Africa’s policy more accurately.

In simple terms, non-alignment helps our foreign policy navigate the complexities of global diplomacy while striving to create a more just and equitable world order where all nations can thrive unencumbered by outdated paradigms of power.

The alternative to non-alignment is pandering to superpowers, thus sacrificing our sovereignty. To paraphrase former President of India Jawaharlal Nehru, one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, South Africa will not be “the plaything of others”.

In conclusion, while Hartley and Mills’ contributions to the debate on South Africa’s foreign policy, backed by the Brenthurst Foundation, carry an aura of credibility, it is imperative to approach their claims with a critical mindset. The interplay between non-alignment, our national interest and the country’s constitutional and democratic principles requires a nuanced understanding beyond surface-level analysis. DM

Chrispin Phiri is spokesperson for the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola.

Categories:

Op-eds

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...