SA’s human rights agenda: a foreign policy conundrum

UNDER apartheid, South Africa was dubbed a pariah state. Locally and globally the apartheid government was accused of violating human rights and ruining the country’s international relations prospects.

- PROF BHEKI MNGOMEZULU

As the country prepared for the new political dispensation in the early 1990s following FW De Klerk’s historic speech that liberation movements would be unbanned and their leaders released from jail, South Africa embarked on a new path in global politics.

In this regard, Nelson Mandela wrote a paper titled “South Africa’s future foreign policy”. The thrust of his argument in this document was that South Africa’s foreign policy agenda under the new political dispensation post-apartheid should be anchored on respect for human rights.

Mandela pleaded with the global community to embrace this idea.

Internally, when the Interim Constitution was crafted in 1993, and when the current constitution was adopted in 1996, Chapter 2 focused on human rights. While this was a noble idea, recent developments in relations between South Africa and the US have necessitated a relook at South Africa’s foreign policy posture.

The decision by the American government to declare South Africa’s Ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, persona non grata raises critical questions about the relevance of South Africa’s foreign policy stance under current geopolitics.

First, is South Africa’s human rights approach still relevant today in the global context?

Second, should South Africa steadfastly hold on to her historic posture since 1994 even at the expense of ruining bilateral relations?

Importantly, how should the country strike a balance between global and domestic realities? Does it make sense for South Africa to stick to its foreign policy stance even if it is going to have serious repercussions for the country?