Great expectations: has South Africa's foreign policy promoted human rights and democracy?

A Freedom House study suggests that human rights and democracy can't compete with foreign policy priorities like the economy.

Date: 2014-11-18

Time: 10:30 to 12:30

Venue: Conference room , ISS Pretoria , Block C , Brooklyn Court , 361 Veale Street , map

Since the end of apartheid, the world has looked to South Africa to be a leader on the continent for advancing human rights and democracy. A recent report by Freedom House concludes that South Africa’s foreign policy has had ‘minimal’ impact on promoting human rights and democracy.

From its contribution at the United Nations to regional diplomatic efforts, South Africa’s foreign policy has largely focused on state sovereignty, non-interference, and collective action.

The Freedom House report assesses the European Union along with 10 countries that play a key political and economic role in their regions. It reveals the extent to which human rights and democracy appear to be malleable principles that are subservient to other imperatives, such as the economy.

China, for instance, is rarely criticised by governments in the study, despite ongoing domestic human rights abuses. This seminar presented and discussed the findings of the Freedom House assessment of South Africa, as well as the broader global overview. Daniel Calingaert, Executive Vice President of Freedom House,explained that the purpose of the report is to better understand the global decline in human rights and democracy.

Paul Graham, who currently chairs the Council for a Community of Democracies, authored the section on South Africa. During the seminar, he explained that former president Nelson Mandela had championed a foreign policy approach based on promoting human rights and democracy. However, the presidency of Thabo Mbeki saw a new approach of ‘quiet diplomacy.’

The guiding principle of South African foreign policy has largely been one of self-interest. South Africa rarely takes a stance as an individual nation, but prefers to work through regional, multi-stakeholder mechanisms such as the African Union or the Southern African Development Community. Since President Jacob Zuma’s incumbency there has been little cohesive force in foreign policy, and the White Paper that should guide South Africa’s approach is in draft form.

Attendees discussed the role of states with regard to multilateral agencies, and debated what the most appropriate ways are for countries to take a position on human rights and democracy, while still taking into account issues of ‘sovereignty.’ This is particularly challenging, as many states in the developing world ascribe to a foreign policy of non-interference. This is why most countries tend to work through multilateral institutions instead of taking a strong individual stance.

In the case of South Africa, it is argued that a large degree of hypocrisy is at play. The recently released Khampepe report on the Zimbabwean poll of 2002 judged the elections not to be free and fair. Yet with full knowledge of this reality, Mbeki endorsed results that he knew to fail fundamentally in reflecting the will of the Zimbabwean people. It was questioned whether the South African government’s refusal to Zimbabweans in choosing their leader is necessarily positive or negative. This may depend on whether one views the promotion of short-term stability as a better option over democracy.