South Africa’s Role in Africa: Centre for Policy Studies and Centre for Conflict Resolution briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFARIS AND ON DEFENCE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEES
9 March 2005

SOUTH AFRICA’S ROLE IN AFRICA: CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES AND CENTRE FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
’South Africa in Africa: The Post-Apartheid Decade’ (Report from the Centre for Conflict Resolution seminar)

SUMMARY
The Centre for Policy Studies and the Centre for Conflict Resolution gave a presentation on the role of South Africa in Africa, as had been discussed at latter organisation’s seminar in Stellenbosch from 29 July – 1 August 2004. It was reported that other African nations’ views of South Africa had been influenced by South Africa’s history as a destabilising power in Africa. South Africa’s role would depend on the correction of inequities from the apartheid era that continued to exist. Memberse questioned the ability of academics to appreciate the compromises that had been made during the transition to democracy. They further enquired about the chances that South Africa might hold Africa’s seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council.

Centre for Policy Studies and Centre for Conflict Resolution briefing
Dr Chris Landsberger, Director of the Centre for Policy Studies, felt that South Africa’s role in Africa would be determined by its domestic policies. Africans from other states thought the negotiated settlement had left the ‘national question’ unanswered and were struck by the continued inequalities in South Africa’s economy and society. African politicians believed that race and poverty had not been addressed enough in the reconciliation process. The black middle class needed to become a "patriotic bourgeoisie" or it would become "part of the problem". South Africa’s moral legitimacy would be questioned as long as black people lived in areas created during apartheid. The country’s democracy and progressive legal framework were recognised, but not thought adequate for South Africa to lead Africa. South Africa would need radical ‘deconstruction and reconstruction’ in its current system.

Dr Adekeye Adebajo, Executive Director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution, added that South Africa’s history as a destabilising force affected its ongoing relationships with other African nations. South Africa had been responsible for 500 000 to 800 000 deaths in Africa between 1980 and 1998, and 60% of South Africa’s officer corps remained white. South Africa was the largest foreign investor in Africa and some African nations feared a new form of economic colonialism. Some felt that South Africa’s immigration policy had not shown gratitude for other nations having sheltered South African exiles during apartheid. They were concerned about rising xenophobia and felt that South Africans were not interested in the welfare of the rest of Africa. President Mbeki had nevertheless been praised for military interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and the Comores. President Mandela had became isolated politically when he criticised President Abache of Nigeria on human rights offences. President Mbeki had learned from that and it had influenced his approach to President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. South Africa could be the ‘norm-setter’ for Africa in the future.

Discussion
Mr M Sayedali-Shah (DA) asked if regional groupings like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) could cause inter-regional tensions in Africa.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) said that radical change would be problematic and that South Africa had been called a ‘miracle’ by the world because of the negotiated settlement. South Africa did not want to lead Africa, but wanted to work with Africa.

Mr K Bapela (ANC) said that there has been resentment in other countries about South Africa business investment leading to the ruin of their local businesses. On a trip to Angola, he had been asked why he was the only black man present, when all the other South Africa businessmen with him where white.

Mr D Gibson (DA) asserted that the academics who had attended the conference were incorrect in their views and "arrogant and racist". As a white African, he had every right to live in Africa. The argument that South Africa immigration policy was ungrateful was ridiculous because other African countries only sent unskilled labour to South Africa. He supported the South African response to the Nigerian situation.

Professor B Turok (ANC) said that South Africa needed to be seen as an African partner in order to establish a strong international lobby for common interests. South Africa could learn from the behaviour of elites in Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana that had hurt the post-colonial development of those nations. Race was still an ongoing issue in South Africa and that, as a white man, he had felt more comfortable in other African countries than he had felt in South Africa.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) said that there was no white or black Africans and that people were either African or they were not. The Constitution has been referred to as the most progressive in the world but was really the most Eurocentric. The South African Constitution had given more rights to homosexuals than to traditional leaders.

Ms S Camerer (DA) inquired about the chances that South Africa would hold Africa’s seat on the United Nations (UN) Security Council.

Ms S Hajaig (ANC) asserted that academics were not aware of the real life circumstances under which people lived, and challenged the presenters to give an example of a country where everyone was satisfied with transformation after only ten years.

Dr Adebajo answered that it would be dangerous to dismiss academics and that the conference had also been attended by African Union and United Nations officials, as well as South African Members of Parliament and defence officials. Regional groupings would not lead to tensions between regions, but would compliment each other. Total transformation had not been expected within ten years, but more could be done. South Africa wanted to lead Africa, as evidenced by South Africa vying for the UN Security Council seat. South Africa should not have been concerned with envy from other countries because envy followed wealth. America was not concerned and nor had Nigeria been in the past. Xenophobia had spread to all levels of South Africa, including Parliament. The question of why South Africa needed Africa was a good one because Africa was the third largest import region for South Africa. If South Africa "ignored Africa, Africa would come to South Africa in the form of refugees". If South Africa won the UN Security Council seat, it would be because of non-African votes in the UN General Assembly. Academics and intellectuals needed to be activists as well.

Dr Landsberger said that the more successful South Africa became, the more criticism it would receive. The ‘villains’ of the past have not taken full responsibility for their actions. The African nations could push for a ‘rotating seat’ on the UN Security Council. There needed to be more debate between academics and government officials.

The Chairperson said that Mr Gibson’s previous comment about Africa only sending unskilled labour to South Africa was insensitive and inaccurate. South Africa needed Africa because it was part of Africa.

The meeting was adjourned.