Oscar van Heerden | Consistent or confused? SA knows why it joined BRICS alliance | News24

South Africa knows why it joined the BRICS alliance. It knows the
current dominant capitalist system is not the panacea of all our global
problems. It also understands international relations and foreign policy
politics require compromise and diplomacy, not rigidity, writes Oscar
van Heerden.

Is the BRICS grouping a principled alliance, and if so, based on what or
is it a loose economic relationship with which objectives? This is the most
pertinent question for me when looking at South Africa’s foreign policy.

Anyone who studied international relations will tell you a country’s
foreign policy is but an extension of its domestic policies or as former
British prime minister William Gladstone stated, “Here is my first
principle of foreign policy, good government at home”.  

In the early 2000s, the South African government decided to form part of
an alliance namely IBSA, which was India, Brazil, and South Africa. It was established
in 2003.

One could argue this was premised, among other factors, on the basic
principle that all three countries practised a western-style democracy. In
2009, China, Russia, India, and Brazil formed BRIC. South Africa joined in
2010. 

READ | Cyril Ramaphosa: BRICS partnership has great value for
South Africa

South Africa’s membership to the BRICS alliance makes a clear break from
this basic principle because the system of government in China and Russia is
somewhat different from the West. 

It must be stated though, that these systems though different from a western
democracy, are completely acceptable to the Chinese and Russian
people.  

So, if we are not concerned with the governance systems in our respective
countries, then the alliance must be premised on something else. But before we
delve into that matter, let’s just ask why China insisted on South Africa
getting a membership as opposed to any other African country.

A new global order? 

Many pundits still wonder about South Africa’s inclusion into the
grouping simply because it is not a dominant emerging economy, unlike the other
four members. So, why its inclusion?

Well, for starters, I think we can all agree the inclusion of a country
from the African continent was imperative lest this grouping again commits the
same atrocity of excluding Africa from the world stage. So, why South Africa
then you might wonder.

Well, even though South Africa no longer has the title of the largest economy
in Africa (that would be Nigeria), it does have the most diverse economy. In
other words, not reliant on only one commodity.

It is backed up with a sound financial sector and an infrastructure par
excellence (airports, harbours, and road networks). There is also excellent
communication technology in place and a stable outlook in terms of its
constitutional democracy. For all these reasons, me thinks, the obvious choice
would have been South Africa.  

READ | Mpumelelo Mkhabela: SA’s jellyfish approach to human
rights unlikely to see it arrest Putin

Now, let’s get back to why this alliance and what it is premised upon?

We must ask why the grouping decided to establish a new development
bank, with each country bankrolling the base funds for the bank. Surely,
the countries could have made use of established international development
banks such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. They
chose not to. Why?

Is it perhaps because the IMF with its structural adjustment programmes
and dictatorial behaviour has begun to irritate lenders from the developing
world. Or perhaps the interference on domestic politics before and after loans
are made available from the World Bank. All of which is designed to ensure that
developing economies remain in a debt trap and beholden to these institutions.

BRICS is not a military alliance, but joint military exercises do take
place between members from time to time. Trade among the members is
preferential and has increased all round as well.

Could it be that the stated objectives of the alliance are to envision a
new global order? One that moves us all away from a unipolar global
hegemon, where everyone else gets bullied and told what to do on the one hand
and on the other hand, one that reconfigures a world order away from western
domination where the haves remain in the collective west and the have nots in
the collective east and global south.

And if this is the objective of the BRICS countries and so many others
now want to join the alliance in pursuit of this righteous agenda, then we can
ill afford for our foreign policy to be confused.

Serve our interests first

We must be clear this new global order – this multilateral international
order – is what we will principally fight for.

It means as South Africa, we serve our national interests first and
foremost. This means keeping good trade relations with both the US and China as
well as with the EU. 

It means that we keep good relations and solidarity with the peoples of
Palestine, Cuba, and Western Sahara. It means that in a war, we keep our
non-alignment posture and do not get swayed from it, not through bullying nor
through threats. And finally, we fought, perished, and died to attain our
sovereignty which means that we will never compromise on it.

The world is changing and changing fast, and we must change with it.

This is never an easy task, as political theorist Michael Oakshott
reminds us, “In political activity, then, men sail a boundless and
bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage,
neither starting point nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep
afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy; and the seamanship
consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order
to make a friend of every hostile occasion.”

South Africa knows why it joined the BRICS alliance; it is not confused.
It knows the current dominant capitalist system is not the panacea of all our
global problems, far from it. 

It
also understands international relations and foreign policy politics require
compromise and diplomacy, not rigidity. But most of all, the globe needs a
genuine multilateral system that reflects the current global realities and not
a post-World War Two reality. 

I’m reminded of Joseph Joffe, the academic from Harvard University when
he reflected on the US foreign policy and stated you either take a “Bismarck
or Britain” approach. The question for South Africa is, should we animate
the same idea? And if so, which approach will it be?

–
Dr Oscar van Heerden is a scholar of international relations (IR), where he
focuses on international political economy, with an emphasis on Africa, and
SADC in particular.

*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to opinions@news24.com with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers’ submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.