South Africa's Awkward Teenage Years

The Rainbow Nation has finally arrived on the world stage -- but did its conscience stay at home?

BY EVE FAIRBANKS | JAN/FEB 2012

Not long after I moved to South Africa, in mid-2009, I was invited to the government's relaunch of its national "brand." Over hors d'oeuvres and cocktails in a pavilion overlooking the Cape Town waterfront, Paul Bannister, the tanned, pink-shirted CEO of a governmental marketing arm called Brand South Africa, told a group of  journalists that it was time to move past Nelson Mandela and the Rainbow Nation thing and toward a new, more muscular national identity.

How to characterize this new identity, though, posed a trickier problem. Bannister offered us a series of ad agency-generated concepts, each one vaguer and more Madison Avenue than the last: "South Africa: alive with possibility." "A country that inspires others in different ways." "The Apple of nations: Think different!"

I couldn't help thinking of the brand relaunch again this past fall, when the South African government refused to grant the Dalai Lama a visa to attend Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu's birthday party in Cape Town. Even Tutu was mystified. If there's any country that ought to welcome the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader with open arms, it should be South Africa, so recently emerged from its own world-famous struggle against a repressive regime. The refusal, Tutu complained, reminded him of "the way authorities dealt with applications by black South Africans for travel documents under apartheid."

In truth, South Africa's foreign policy has been perplexing -- and unsettling -- for years. In 2007, South Africa voted against a United Nations resolution calling on Myanmar's military junta to stop its human rights abuses. A year later, it helped thwart a U.N. attempt to impose sanctions on ruinous Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, even though -- as the American U.N. ambassador angrily pointed out -- similar sanctions more than 20 years earlier had helped deliver South Africa from apartheid. Often, South Africa's diplomats have appeared confused, mobilizing against rogue regimes only to back quickly away. Last March, for example, after first supporting the U.N. resolution mandating the no-fly zone to support Libyan rebels fighting Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi, South Africa turned around to slam the resulting NATO bombing campaign, balked at releasing $1.5 billion in assets to the rebels, and griped about the unceremonious way Qaddafi was chased out of Tripoli. President Jacob Zuma himself flew to Tripoli in May and expressed sympathy for Qaddafi, noting the bombings had "claimed the lives of his son and grandchildren."

What's going on here? Has South Africa forgotten its own inspirational narrative in refusing to advance the cause of human rights internationally? For many, the story of South Africa's sorry footprint on the world is very much the tale of a rising economy taking precedence over gauzy ideals. Few stories about the Dalai Lama flap (the second time in two years South Africa refused to grant him a visa) failed to note that it coincided with the South African deputy president's trip to Beijing to announce a $2.5 billion investment deal with China. Qaddafi, too, lavished South Africa with money; he owned the gold-tinted, luxury Michelangelo Hotel soaring over Johannesburg's financial district. And neighboring Zimbabwe, regardless of its perilous state under Mugabe, is a hot target for South African investment. South Africa seems determined these days to earn its new identity as a regional superpower -- the "S" recently invited to join the booming BRIC economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

It didn't start out this way. In the years following its democratic transition, South Africa defaulted to a foreign policy dictated by the principles of its liberation struggle. A 1994 foreign-policy document written by the African National Congress (ANC), the Mandela-headed movement that became the ruling party that year, put it simply: The "struggle to end apartheid was a global one," and South Africa should honor its history by embarking on a "worldwide Human Rights campaign." In 1996, in keeping with this principle, then-President Mandela personally welcomed the Dalai Lama to the South African Parliament. South Africa seemed destined to have a foreign policy to fit its past, setting itself up as a moral beacon and global conscience.

Ntswe Mokoena/Afp/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: AFRICA
 

Eve Fairbanks is a writer living in South Africa.

MICHAELGERALDPDEALINO

12:09 AM ET

January 3, 2012

Not impressed with S. Africa

I am from the Philippines and I have never believed in South Africa from the start. What a hypocritical and ungrateful country. South Africa's government seems more interested in sleeping with authoritarian regimes than standing up for democracy. Zuma is like our President Benigno Aquino III who did not attend the Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony for Liu Xiabo because he wanted to cozy up with China. Shame on you!

 

WCORRENTE

10:31 AM ET

January 3, 2012

Why Should They?

In remaining unwilling to anger potential investors, South African leadership is acting in the best interests of its county. There is no reason why tiny South Africa, a 3rd rate player in the global economy, should risk the livelihood and prosperity of its citizenry to host the Dalai Lama-- a man who is persona non grata in one of South Africa's biggest investor nations. Granted, the man's treatment is not just. However, it would be poor policy to risk economic instability and political upheaval for a minor political figure of nation 6800 miles away. Like it or not, 2.5 billion dollars in local investment is far more important to South African leadership than the political ambitions of an ex-ruler. "Inspirational narratives" do not provide jobs, housing, or employment.
That said, standing up for morality and human rights are foreign policy luxuries. The United States has often been willing to stand up for both-- with exceptions. U.S. policymakers saw no reason to imperil our basing arrangements in Bahrain, despite the country's abject brutality in handling protesters. However, the U.S. did criticize Iran for the same behavior. South Africa has no reason to be a moral beacon anymore than the United States does. It is a country, not a cause. Its people have basic needs and grievances-- they aren't abstract political symbols.

 

NAYNA DESAI

8:07 PM ET

January 6, 2012

Awkward or Strategic?

Eve, South Africa is a beautiful country - no doubt you've found that in you short stay there so far. However, you quite rightly point out that there are a myriad of inconsistencies in South African foreign policy. One view is that these foreign policy decisions are based on historical relationships that the ANC had (not sure about the military junta in Myanmar, but certainly the case with Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe). Given the level of corruption that is constantly exposed in the South African news these days, it is easy to speculate that these historical relationships, once political, may well be financial ones now.

In an interesting discussion I had with a regional BBC correspondent recently, I learnt an alternative view on South African's foreign policy. It was that the inconsistent decisions are not as haphazard as they seem - in fact, they may well be by design (personally I think this gives way too much credit to the South African leadership, but I listened on).

The argument goes that South Africa needs to establish itself on the world stage, and certainly as a player to be reckoned with in Africa. By branding itself as a 'rebel' of sorts, it forces other countries - notably the powers that need stuff done in Africa to take note and make a conscious effort to remain in South Africa's good books. i.e. the strategy is to position South Africa as a gatekeeper of some sort for achieving political/ economic motives in Africa. I am curious to read your thoughts on that.

Nayna Desai

 

MICHELLE BROWN

5:41 AM ET

January 7, 2012

Hardly strategic

Sorry Nayna but one can hardly call anything about South African foreign policy strategic - they are inconsistent even in managing the same people - take Gaddafi as a prime example as Eva indicates... first friend, then enemy, then friend - all within the same South African leadership structure.. that's not strategy, that is just pure discord!

Michelle

 

YARINSIZ

9:34 AM ET

January 27, 2012

In remaining unwilling to

In remaining unwilling to anger potential investors, South African leadership is acting in the best interests of its county. There is no reason why tiny South Africa, a 3rd rate player in the global economy, should risk the livelihood and prosperity of its citizenry to host the Dalai Lama-- a man who is persona non grata in one of South Africa's biggest investor nations. Granted, the man's treatment is not just. However, it would be poor policy to seslichat risk economic instability and political upheaval for a minor political figure of nation 6800 miles away. Like it or not, 2.5 billion dollars in local investment is far more important to South African leadership than the political ambitions of an ex-ruler. "Inspirational narratives" do not provide jobs, housing, or employment.

 

HECTORGREG11

11:18 AM ET

January 27, 2012

Interesting

This seems like a good idea to me, because it is time to move past Nelson Mandela. He was a great man, but he is old and now the country needs to move into a new chapter of maturity and development. They can always look back on Nelson Mandela with pride and know that they are heading for better things. They seem to have done a good job rebranding themselves. I would love to get some photos of the country with a Canon 1DX. Lets hope that SA can move forward insurance austin and usher in the 21st century with class and advancement. It has a lot to offer the world and can help Africa get better publicity and effect the entire country. realestate nicaragua