White Paper on South Africa’s foreign policy: Departmental briefing

Briefing by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO)

The Department briefed the Committee on the White Paper on South Africa’s foreign policy. The delegation comprised of Mr Kgabo Mahoai, Acting Director General, and Mr Fadl Nacerodien, Acting Deputy Director General: Policy Research and Analysis. An apology was tendered on behalf of the Director General Ambassador Jerry Matjila as he was currently in Brisbane, Australia.  Mr Nacerodien undertook the briefing. He stated at the outset that the process on the White Paper had been long and he was relieved that it had been finalised. A brief background was that in 2010 the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation had initiated an assessment of SA’s foreign policy against a backdrop of a rapidly changing international relations environment. Widespread engagement and consultation took place and the result was the White Paper, which was approved by Cabinet. The White Paper grounded foreign policy in South Africa’s domestic priorities. Foreign policy was a projection of domestic policy. Of great importance was the need to balance the values of SA with that of its interests. The concept of “diplomacy of Ubuntu” was used to explain SA’s foreign policy approach of collaboration, cooperation and partnership rather than conflict and competition. SA’s soft approach was what elevated it to a higher category than other countries. On the other end of the spectrum were countries such as the USA that followed a hard power approach and believed that force should be used to back up what they said.

Some of the pillars of SA’s foreign policy were SADC and the African continent itself. Work was to be done with developing countries in the South as well as with developed countries in the North. There would also be the promotion of global equity and social justice. Key foreign policy principles were that states were dependant on one another. High on SA’s agenda was the pursuit for unity and economic, political and social renewal of Africa. The upliftment of the spirit of internationalism, pan-Africanism, and South-South solidarity was a priority in addition to the rejection of colonialism and other forms of oppression. Drivers and trends in the global system were identified given the rapidly changing economic and political order. The White Paper could therefore not be too specific as it was a long-term process and it had to remain relevant for five to ten years. Some of the factors to consider were demographics, the realignment of economic power, innovation, the heightened demand for scarce resources and the changing nature of conflict and insecurity. SA would continue to strengthen development partnerships and the South African Development Partnership Agency (SADPA) would be an important instrument to promote more effective development cooperation. The developing world, especially Africa, had a limited voice and participation was needed in the decision-making and policy-making processes of global trade, economic and financial institutions. There was thus a need for comprehensive reform of the architecture of global governance, including the United Nations system and the Bretton Woods Institutions to make them more effective, legitimate and responsive to the needs of the developing world. Groups such as the G20, the Major Economies Forum and the Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (BRICS) bloc had grown in prominence and were focused on global issues related to political, security, environment and economic matters. The issue of economic diplomacy was elaborated upon. It was important for countries to pursue economic interests. This was especially relevant to SA given its National Development Plan (NDP) and Operation Phakisa imperatives. The success of economic diplomacy was linked to the achievement of domestic priorities. The focus of SA’s international engagements must therefore include the creation of sustainable jobs and scaled up investments in employment-intensive sectors in SA. South Africa’s economic diplomacy would therefore provide guidance to government and the business sector on economic developments and markets. It would furthermore attract investments and tourism whilst removing barriers to trade.

Discussion

The Chairperson said members were provided with a very elaborate presentation on the White Paper on South Africa’s foreign policy. The White Paper had taken time to develop and had been approved by Cabinet. Members being new to international relations had felt that the briefing would be useful. Sometimes SA received positive feedback and other times negative feedback on what it did on the international stage.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) asked why SA needed a foreign policy when the world arena was ever changing. Was there continuity or was a new approach being followed? There was criticism that the definition of Ubuntu was not clear. What would SA do if a country became confrontational towards it? Was Ubuntu just an abstract term? What were SA’s national interests, and did the foreign policy speak to those national interests? What was the definition of national interest? Perceptions were that SA was more focused on South relations than the North, were North relations being neglected? Was the SADPA consultative or advisory and to whom did they report? Foreign policy was conducted by the Presidency whilst the implementation was done by DIRCO. What did economic diplomacy mean? What was the difference between economic diplomacy and commercial diplomacy? What should a modern foreign mission be like given the changing world and the issue of economic diplomacy? Was SA moving away from the African Renaissance and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)? 

Mr Nacerodien noted that in a nation state all things were guided by policy, hence a foreign policy was necessary. The challenge was for the policy not to become outdated. The White Paper should therefore not contain detail on operational things. One had to take into consideration SA’s transition from the old Apartheid state to SA’s democracy. There was a need to look at what had significantly changed. Consideration needed to be given to SA’s values and interests. The White Paper provided the founding principles of SA’s foreign policy. The principles of foreign policy remained the same; nuances had changed. Ex president Thabo Mbeki had championed African Renaissance and NEPAD but there were many things that were attributed to SA that was not SA’s doing. SA needed to be modest about the influence that it had. SA needed a foreign policy that spoke to the issues of the day and should not become outdated. Ten years from now SA’s foreign policy should be revisited to relook at SA’s interests and values. The White Paper should have been done in the 1990s already and revisited now to check on whether the values and interests of SA were still the same. Foreign policy was not abstract but was concrete. Cabinet had discussed the issue of national interests. There were discussion documents. To SA national interests were the promotion and protection of South African citizens and the African continent. Ubuntu did not define national interest narrowly in a materialistic way. SA’s foreign policy encapsulated Africa as a whole and SA was not neglecting the North. It was vitally important for SA to deal with whoever could sustainably develop SA. In today’s world SA had to deal with where the benefit was. On the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the USA wished to exclude SA from it as they felt that SA had graduated from it. SA needed to negotiate with the USA to remain in AGOA as its exclusion from it held dire consequences. There was a debate going around that SA was being too soft with China.

Economic diplomacy was different from commercial diplomacy. Economic diplomacy was about how SA could influence international trade, the G20 etc. Commercial diplomacy dealt with goods and services. It had to be remembered that peace and security was still critical. It was important that ambassadors and mission staff needed to be trained on economic diplomacy. Diplomats also needed to be trained; training toolkit was in place. Engagement with provinces and other departments was also important for economic diplomacy. Economic diplomacy was in itself in flux. It was all well and good to train someone but it was another issue to be able to respond to changing dynamics.

On African Renaissance, SA was not moving away from it. Africa was still a focus point.   

Mr M Maila (ANC) observed that with SA’s membership to BRICS, SA was neglecting other players in Africa. These other players in Africa were now entering into their own alliances.

Mr Nacerodien speaking on SA’s involvement in BRICS said that SA was not neglecting the USA and Europe. The BRICS had become a phenomenon that needed to be factored in on the world stage. It was a game changer. SA needed to have its own plan in terms of what it wished to gain from being a member of BRICS. On alliances further calibration was needed. Sometimes the media painted SA as being mutually exclusive. It was important to understand that mini-laterals were just as important in a multilateral system. It was not about making friends with countries but more about negotiating until you reach consensus.  

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) asked the DIRCO to unpack what was meant with the reform of the United Nations Security Council and the Bretton Wood Institutions. What needed to be reformed?

Mr Nacerodien explained that the United Nations reform was not about SA wishing to be in the United Nations Security Council. The understanding was that if the African continent was better off then SA would consequently also be better off. The United Nations structure had gone through reforms.

Reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions was critical. At present there were unfair trade relations. The effect of such practices had brought down SA’s credit rating. A formula was used for the restructuring of the World Bank.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) pointed out that the process from a Green Paper in 1996 to a White Paper had been a long one. Did the DIRCO check on the relevancy of the inputs that had been made given the long timeframe? She asked whether the foreign policy would address the issue of national interests versus global realities.

Mr Nacerodien responded that the DIRCO had done a great deal of work to get SA on the world stage. SA was the new kid on the block and had to stand its ground. The issues contained in the Green Paper were looked at given the huge timeframe until the completion of the White Paper. There were differences between the Green Paper and the White Paper. In the Green Paper the new world order was mentioned. At the time of drafting the White Paper South Africans were living in the new world order. A huge amount of the language in the Green Paper had to be updated. The principles of foreign policy remained the same.

Ms S Kalyan (DA) asked whether the DIRCO had made formal proposals on the reformation of the United Nations. She also asked what the difference was between the Consultative Forum on International Relations and the South African Council on International Relations. What was the proper definition of Ubuntu?

Mr Nacerodien explained that the South African Council on International Relations was a civil society forum made up of academia, business people and Non Government Organisations that advised the Minster of International Relations and Cooperation. The Consultative Forum on International Relations was a coordinating forum.

The Chairperson was of the view that the qualification of SA’s foreign policy had pros and cons. The pros were that it informed Cabinet, provinces, academia, parliament and citizens on where SA stood and what its values and principles were. The cons were that it made other countries aware of what SA’s stance was and chances were that they could take advantage of SA. Was SA’s foreign policy still relevant given the rise of militarism and of unilateralism in the world in recent years? There was also a shift in economic and trade balances. What if, for instance, Brazil joined another grouping and used their influence in BRICS to their own benefit? Did SA’s foreign policy take these types of scenarios into consideration? He felt that the concept of Ubuntu needed to be properly articulated. Perhaps the DIRCO needed to consider having a whole chapter on Ubuntu. Ubuntu did not mean humanness in English as many believed and neither did it mean menslikheid in Afrikaans. It’s meaning went much deeper. It was good to brand SA’s diplomacy as diplomacy of Ubuntu. There was a perception that SA’s foreign policy and the DIRCO was seen to be elitist. The explanation of SA’s core values was also important. What was the difference in SA’s foreign policy from what it was 20 years prior to 1994 was and what it was now 20 years on? It was also believed by some that with the end of President Mbeki’s reign as president so too had African Renaissance been abandoned or under accentuated. From the period 1945-1994 many states in Africa had gained independence from their colonial masters. The emphasis of world diplomacy had shifted from political diplomacy to economic diplomacy. There was thus a new scramble for resources in the world. With SA belonging to BRICS the perception was that SA was being used as a gateway to get into the rest of Africa. SA and African countries needed to be aware of the world wishing to exploit their resources. SA’s diplomats needed to be alert on commercial diplomacy.  

Mr Nacerodien, on the perception that SA’s foreign policy was elitist, responded that a foreign policy had to represent domestic imperatives. There were over 30 outreach programmes done at ministerial level alone. The DIRCO was also engaged in outreach.

Mr Mahoai welcomed the Committee’s comments on the White Paper. National interest was an issue that had been discussed by Cabinet. He requested the Committee to assist the DIRCO with the process. The DIRCO had just restarted the process on the Foreign Service Bill.

Ms Kalyan’s understanding of the rules of parliament was that everything lapsed when a term of parliament ended. In this instance when the fourth parliament ended. In a previous meeting it was said that Chapter 7 of the National Development Plan was to be revised in the context of the White Paper. She consequently felt the current presentation to be incomplete, as members did not know what the revised Chapter 7 would look like.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee have a second bite over the issues raised in the present meeting, including SA’s foreign policy. It would be useful if the principals of the DIRCO ie Ministers or Deputy Ministers could be present in the meeting. It would allow the Committee to engage on political issues. Issues such as the deeper articulation of Ubuntu could be discussed. Other issues to be dealt with could be the Foreign Service Bill, SADPA and the benefits of BRICS. He suggested that the meeting be scheduled just after the 2015 State of the Nation Address.

The Committee agreed to the meeting to be scheduled in early 2015.

The meeting was adjourned.