/ MEDIA STATEMENT / The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

It seems very long ago, and many people might have forgotten this, but it was only back in 2016 when our country’s delegation to the United Nations (UN) abstained – no doubt under instruction from Pretoria - from voting in support of a resolution to appoint an independent watchdog on protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, essentially to protect the human rights of LGBTQI+ communities. 

The vote passed, nevertheless, thanks to 23 votes that supported it. 18 members had voted against it and 6, including South Africa, had abstained. The watchdog is appointed on three-year terms, reporting annually to the Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly.  

Upon being asked to explain South Africa’s decision to abstain from the vote, then Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, told journalists something to the effect that South Africa could not afford to be seen walking too far ahead of its African peers. This was very strange for a minister of a country that had enshrined the human rights of LGBTQI+ communities in its Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

South Africa remains the only country to have done so as I write this, in the whole of Africa, and that boasts a relatively free and thriving LBGTQI+ community that openly celebrates and asserts its existence through various annual events – including ‘Gay Pride’ - despite there still being unacceptably high levels of prejudice against it, including, in some cases, violent attacks that ended in the loss of life. 

Fortunately, there have been successful prosecutions and convictions of some of the perpetrators of violent attacks against members of the South African LGBTQI+ community.    

Now, I chose this example of inconsistency in South Africa’s international posture not so much with the aim of inviting a debate on its merits but to draw attention to the confusion that ensues when a country that claims to stand for something fails/refuses to defend it in the international arena or acts otherwise directly in opposition to its democratic values. 

Leadership is, necessarily, often a lonely place to be. This is irrespective of whether such leadership is that or a company, NGO, church group, or a country. Leaders who are desperate to be loved at all costs are often poor leaders because they’re often scared of making tough decisions or of standing apart from the people they must lead. This doesn’t mean that leaders must be inaccessible, arrogant, opposed to listening to and learning from others before making decisions, or that they must be unapproachable and feared by those who follow them. The latter are also poor leaders. 

Smart leaders know that ‘fear’ is not the same thing as ‘respect’. Being feared must never be confused with being respected. They also know that being a leader means being principled, consistent, empathetic, emotionally mature and visionary. It also means being able to set the tone from the front, not with arrogance or disdain, but with firm gentleness, taking their followers along with them as they advance.

This also applies to country leadership. Many people in the (South) African diaspora believed that post-apartheid South Africa would be a beacon of hope for the downtrodden, starting on home ground and spreading into the rest of Africa and in faraway places, around the world. They believed that while it would, like all other countries, rightfully pursue its national interests, it would do so with a different tone, mindful of the relatively unique position it occupied, the forgiving and unifying example set by Nelson Mandela, and the hunger in other parts of the world, including in conflicts engulfing places as far away as Northern Ireland, Israel-Palestine, Western Sahara, and now Russia and Ukraine.

While no one can deny that it still had its own journey of internal healing to make, post-apartheid South Africa emerged onto the international scene with, arguably, the whole world watching it expectantly. Some might have seen this as too much weight placed on the shoulders of one relatively small country at the southern tip of the African continent, but this was not just any other country; it was Nelson Mandela-led South Africa. 

Even in those early years, Mandela, a leader with a proven backbone and firm sense of identity, was able to push back against powerful countries like the USA and China, which tried, and fortunately failed, to dictate who could be invited to South Africa and who couldn’t. He stood firm in reminding them that while South Africa would work with them as its friends, those friendships would not be exclusive to them only, as it had other friends that it would not shy away from entertaining relations with. 

Sadly, the firm, unambiguous stance taken by Mandela on these and many other issues did not outlive him, thanks to successors who allowed themselves to be push-overs who lacked backbone when it came to their relations with leaders from other parts of the world. In many cases, they have proven to be too star struck, just hungry for selfie-moments, in the presence of powerful foreign leaders, and forgot what they were there to represent. 

They were not even able to stand on principle and support a UN resolution to protect the human rights of the LGBTQI+ community in that resolution of 2016. 

Today, as we end 2024 and prepare to usher in 2025 and a return to power of a US President Donald Trump, the world we live in is vastly different from the clearly bipolar one of the cold war eras. It is a world wherein there is no longer just one or two centres of power, but one that is fast fragmentising right before our eyes, with a growing and increasingly assertive BRICS formation preparing to face-up to the US-led West, led by a Trump whose approach to international relations has proven to be transactional in the style “What’s in it for America?”  

South Africa must not forget that its fundamental sovereign interests do not always align with those of powerful countries like Russia and China, which have their own issues with the US-led West. It must also avoid making the mistake made by many countries in the developing world, of looking for love in international politics. The enemies of South Africa’s friends do not have to be the enemies of South Africa, as its own friends will not always be equally embraced by all the countries it must enjoy positive relations with, especially trade relations. 

South Africa must remember the African saying that “he, or she, who offers his/her head to be used to break the coconut, will not drink of its milk.” It must approach international relations on a policy that aims to bring solutions where there is pain. It must do so even in cases – and there are many of these – where the structural impediments found in the global institutions created in the aftermath of the Second World War (WWII) stand in the way of peace, mitigation against rising climate change, and sustainable coexistence at country, regional, and global levels.                 

We cannot do any of the above if we drive a foreign policy agenda that is not our own, as if we’re hired by some in their fights with others, fights which have nothing to do with us but will only rob us of the independent kingmaker role we should never stop playing in the global arena, mindful, of course, of the slow journey of internal healing - of pains inherited from our far away and immediate past - that still demand our attention.

Having just taken over the leadership of the G20 group of countries for the next 12 months must serve as an opportunity for South Africa to assert its independence, if it still aspires to be true to its founding values and, dare I say, calling.

Issued by ActionSA President Herman Mashaba