SA walking a fine line

BRICS: NEW COUNTRIES INVITED IN ARE ANTI MANY OF ITS IDEOLOGIES

On the positive side, building relationships with oil countries useful.

For all the talk of a Brics currency, the most substantive (for the potentially positive or negative) result from the latest summit was the proposed expansion of the body.

Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been invited to join the grouping from 1 January.

Before its proposed expansion, the average Freedom House* score for the original Brics (comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) was 52 (out of 100). Should all six invited countries join, the average Freedom House score will be 36.

Entities such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Group of Seven (G7 – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US), the African Union and numerous others do not experience perfect agreement on all ideological values amongst the respective members.

But for the G7, at least, there is overt and policy-focused commitment to furthering values, for example democracy and the rule of law, which the members believe are of great import.

There are substantive ideological and governance differences between the Brics countries and even more so with the newest members.

A preference for democracy, the rule of law and free press, are notable amongst countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa, versus a more autocratic, topdown government in countries such as China, Russia and Iran.

Such deep, values-focused differences could render the Brics+ grouping a mere talk shop.

For all its talk of professed “non-alignment” – most notably on the Russian invasion of Ukraine – the South African government had for a long time failed to adopt active non-alignment.

Then a peace initiative with President Cyril Ramaphosa at its forefront headed to Ukraine and Russia. While one can discuss the (de)merits of the initiative, at the very least it provided the government with a useful event to refer to in an attempt to change perceptions in Western capitals.

The conceit of its position is revealed as soon as the issue of Israel and the Palestinians is brought to the fore. Then South Africa becomes nakedly partisan in its approach.

All of the new Brics nations from the Middle East have atrocious human rights records.

Iran and Saudi Arabia, in particular, have been fighting a proxy war in Yemen, which caused a humanitarian catastrophe there. The South African government has not said a word.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and especially Iran bring considerable natural resources to the table.

For South Africa, as a country that has become more reliant on fuel, building some relationships could prove of use.

The Middle East’s share of crude exports is at 46%. At 30%, its share of exports of liquefied natural gas is also important, and this will likely increase, especially for Europe; 30% of all container trade and 16% of air cargo passes through the region.

It might be more prudent for South Africa to move closer to India, rather than China, especially in the context of the struggles currently saddling the Chinese economy and society.

Indeed, the G20 looks to be a better vehicle for advancing more substantive multipolar democracy, whereas Brics could become merely a vehicle for China to extend its influence.

In the global investment environment a risk-off sentiment has settled in. For South Africa, whose risk premium has steadily increased over the last few years, it will be more difficult to attract foreign direct investment.

Accordingly it may be yet more difficult for businesses to grow and jobs to be created.

The International Monetary Fund, for example, has found large-scale industrial policy measures have increased sixfold in 2023. Such trade restrictions, and the rise of what it terms “geoeconomic fragmentation”, could see South Africa lose five percent of its gross domestic product.

In trying to navigate more immediate economic difficulties and fiscal constraints, the government risks short-selling on some of its professed ideals, such as democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and setting itself up to be in a weaker position morally and economically over the medium-to-long term.

Cosying up to more autocratic regimes signals respect for democratic values is mere lip service.

Hattingh is executive director at the Centre for Risk Analysis.

* Freedom House rates people’s access to political rights and civil liberties in 210 countries and territories.

Indeed, the G20 looks to be a better vehicle