Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

South Africa

SA foreign policy in the time of coalition — it’s complicated

SA foreign policy in the time of coalition — it’s complicated
Stephen Grootes
By Stephen Grootes
4 Nov 2024
Facebook
41
The latest apparent spat between the ANC and the DA on foreign policy has led to many claims and accusations. Unfortunately, these are not all grounded in evidence. Rather, this argument should be seen for what it is – different parties with different constituencies having very different views of the world, and thus having different interests. Yet it does raise important questions about party funding.

Over the past few weeks, there have been several incidents which could euphemistically be called “disagreements” over our foreign policy.

Whether it be a small spat over whether Russia is our “friend and ally”, or Ukrainian diplomats should receive visa-free travel, or over South Africa’s genocide accusations against Israel at the International Court of Justice, it is clear that the ANC and the DA have very different views.

This has led to claims being made without facts. For example, the chair of the DA’s Federal Council, Helen Zille, has said the government’s case against Israel was inspired by Iran.

She has also claimed that during the coalition talks between the two parties, the ANC was “obsessive” about retaining the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco).

Zille went further, being quoted by News 24 as saying: “But I could not work out why they were so obsessively wanting international relations, and this is my conclusion. I have no evidence whatsoever. But I think the ANC gets funded by these rogue regimes. I think they get funded by Iran, I think they get funded by Russia, and they cannot let go of that link.”

Zille is surely right about one thing. She has no evidence whatsoever about her claims.

No surprise


While the ANC might have been “obsessive” about retaining the Dirco portfolio, this should not come as a surprise.

It would be rational to assume that a party in government that now has to share power with other parties would prioritise certain departments over others.

First would come control of the Presidency, and then probably authority over the nation’s intelligence services. And immediately after that would come control of international relations.

It would be almost unthinkable for a party with the highest number of votes to give this up. It is absolutely key to a country’s national and political identity.

Considering that a country’s president is usually key to international relations, it would be very difficult to have a president and an international relations minister from different parties.

Also, in international relations, having one message is absolutely vital, it would be foolish to create a situation in which the message could be muddled.

While some in our society may be unhappy with government bringing the case against Israel at the ICJ, it is entirely consistent with the ANC’s long-standing view of the situation in the Middle East and with its relationships with groups in the region.

Nelson Mandela first met then Palestinian Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat in 1990. The two groups both saw themselves as liberation movements, fighting for freedom for their people (Madiba famously told Ted Koppel in 1990 that he would not apologise for the party’s relationship with the PLO or Cuba.

At the same time, it is well known that the Israeli government and the apartheid government worked together, most infamously perhaps on nuclear weapons (this is despite the anti-Semitism of the National Party’s 1948 campaign among white voters).

Also, 13 other countries have now joined South Africa’s case against Israel. One presumes that Zille is not going to claim that Spain is also being led by Iran.

It should not be forgotten that one of the tests the DA faces during this time of coalition is that it must ensure it does not lose its identity to its voters.

Zille may well be using this situation to remind them that her party is still different from the ANC.

Funding influence


All of that said, her comments may well open another question that is vital to our politics; party funding and whether that influences policy. And here her point is very important.

It has been known for some time that the ANC has received money from a mining company that operates here and is owned by a Russian oligarch.

It may be impossible to know if this has influenced ANC policy towards Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But it is an important question to ask, and one the ANC should answer.

Over the years, bodies aligned with the ANC have also claimed that the DA has received money from Israel.

A trip to Israel and Palestine by then DA leader Mmusi Maimane in 2017 led to huge controversy, amid claims that the DA was benefiting from its support for Israel. Again, it would be fair to ask the DA this question.

But, without any evidence one way or another, it would be impossible to say objectively if the ANC or the DA have changed their foreign policy simply because of where they receive funding.

Foreign pressures


Of course, there is probably a much simpler solution to explain what is really happening here.

It can sometimes be forgotten how interesting and important South Africa can be to global powers.

As a country made up of different peoples, there are many different views in our society about what kind of foreign policy we should follow.

Some people see the US as an enemy of human rights for its long-time support of the apartheid government (until Reagan’s veto of sanctions was overridden).

Others see the US as a country to emulate, having grown up watching what the academic Angelo Fick calls “American corporate television”, and reading its books.

In short, the battle for South Africa’s foreign policy is also a battle for a worldview. For example, Russia could be very pleased to do an alleged deal with SA involving weapons, and the US could be very angry.

At the same time, while our politics is evolving, and our foreign policy has moved from the day when Mandela said “Human Rights will be the light that guides our foreign affairs”, international geopolitics is changing, too.

Very few people could have predicted in the 1990s that Israel would become what some now argue is a “fascist state” or that the US could be on the verge of re-electing someone who many now routinely refer to as “fascist”.

At the same time, the human suffering in Gaza, and in Ukraine, was always going to test our government.

These are situations in which ordinary citizens can rightly demand their governments actually do something. And being geographically far away from both the Middle East and Ukraine, the only possible option is to use whatever international instruments there are.

The point is that there are currently more conflicts in the world that will divide our voters. And that will mean more tests for the coalition government. DM

Categories:

Tags: