SA too keen to make friends in Africa -- regardless of the cost

IT was Lord Palmerston, British prime minister under Queen Victoria, who uttered the memorable words that have guided the conduct of foreign policy over the years. “We have no eternal allies,” he told the House of Commons, “and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

Diplomats and technocrats — Henry Kissinger prominent among them — have tinkered with the doctrine and rephrased it into something succinct and chewable: a country has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests. Western powers were guided by their interests, for instance, as they engaged in wars and conquered or colonised foreign territories. Those interests, be they political, economic or strategic, dictated the formation of alliances, with that between the US and Europe being the most powerful and more enduring.

Alliances also come under some strain when those interests diverge. The US famously fell out with Great Britain over the Suez crisis in 1956 and over the Falklands War in 1982. And interests can at times create odd bedfellows: Western powers and the former Soviet Union banded together to defeat Nazi Germany in World War 2.

South Africa is a middle power. Although we tend to brag that we punch above our weight in international affairs, we don’t always count where it matters. The demise of apartheid, ironically, has meant we are no longer in the spotlight. We are producing less and less of the stuff that the world needs. After being the biggest gold producer for more than a century, South Africa now lies fifth, behind China, Australia, the US and Russia. The country lost its strategic importance with the fall of communism. That, fortunately, partly led to the demise of apartheid.

But it is in Africa where South Africa can and has to make an impact. In crude diplomatic language, the continent is South Africa’s own back yard. It is here where it has to assert itself if it is to be taken seriously elsewhere. But contrary to the Palmerstonian canon, South Africa seems less interested in pursuing its interests in Africa lest it creates enemies. It shies away from even a restatement of its own values. It is too keen to make friends, whatever the cost to its own standing or interests.

The overriding aim of its foreign policy in Africa, it seems, is not to offend. It tends to ingratiate itself even with despots, or associates itself with actions that are inimical to either its interests or values.

It is a matter of going along in order to get along. South Africa may be constrained by its desire to eschew apartheid’s jackboot diplomacy, a bit like Germany after the war, but being nice is no substitute for a credible policy. It doesn’t earn one friends either, only contempt. But despite its eagerness to please, the country has already suffered numerous humiliations and setbacks in the short time it’s been freed from the shackles of apartheid.

South Africa has lost credibility over its handling of the debacle in Zimbabwe; it has sent its troops to die needlessly in the Central African Republic; and its brand of diplomacy became something of a laughing stock in Libya. One of its citizens is held hostage by a ragtag army in Yemen — his release is being negotiated through a nongovernmental organisation. This is not good enough.

South Africa’s impotence — or cowardice — was on display again this week as Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed anti-gay laws that could see people sentenced to life for engaging in homosexual acts. The US has condemned the law outright and threatened to suspend its financial assistance. Sweden and Norway have cut off financial aid.

South Africa, with apartheid still fresh in our minds, says only that it is seeking further clarification.

It doesn’t seem to be appalled by such a blatant reminder of its own recent past. Africans should especially be offended by Museveni’s characterisation of his homophobic legislation as an expression of African values. If it is, then so was apartheid. One would hope, though, that South Africa’s equivocation has nothing to do with President Jacob Zuma’s attitude to homosexuals. He has expressed views not too dissimilar to Museveni’s not so long ago. But foreign policy is nothing but an extension of a country’s domestic policy. If we stand for human rights at home, we cannot then be coy to champion those values in foreign lands. If South Africa is to be a significant player in the international arena, it will have to start by sweeping its own back yard. Its economy is too small to justify its Brics (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) bloc membership. But it’s been allowed into the fold because it is rightly seen as a representative of a continent that has huge economic potential.

South Africa has pretensions for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It will have to show some cojones in Africa if it is to make a convincing case that it deserves to sit at the top table. But, above all, we need to be true to ourselves.