Migrants in Cape Town’s Mannenberg community demonstrate against xenophobia. Photo: Reuters/VOANews
How do Africans outside South Africa see the country? What are the perceptions of South Africa’s role on the continent? Do these match the way South Africa sees its role and influence on the continent?
The Conversation asked senior African Union officials and observers of continental politics at the A.U. headquarters in Addis Ababa what they think of South Africa’s African policy and actions.
Responses were given anonymously. This “enabled us to solicit a range of frank opinions and observations to inform a research project on the implementation of South Africa’s ‘African Agenda,’” according to The Conversation.
Here is some insight on the anonymous responses:
From The Conversation. Story by Maxi Schoeman, professor of international relations, University of Pretoria; Asnake Kefale, assistant professor of political science and international relations, Addis Ababa University; and Chris Alden, professor of international relations, London School of Economics and Political Science
It’s time South Africa tuned into Africa’s views about its role on the continent.
South Africa has variously styled itself as a “bridge” between the North, the global South and Africa as well as a “gateway” into the continent. It also sees itself as a spokesperson for Africa, given its membership of the BRICS alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and the G20.
It has declared its commitment to the continent’s Africa agenda, the African Union’s ambitious development plans characterized as “Agenda 2063 – The Africa We Want”.
We were struck by the fact that the interviewees all raised similar issues and concerns. What was also striking was the extent to which these perceptions were at odds with South Africa’s self-declared role on the continent, as well as the impact it believes it’s had in furthering development and raising the continent’s international profile.
There’s a marked difference between how South Africans as people and as a government see themselves and how the rest of the continent perceives them. Our discussions in Addis Ababa highlighted a number of recurring themes that shaped these views.
Interviewees persistently raised the issue of xenophobia in South Africa.
The views expressed were that attacks against foreigners proved that South Africans didn’t view themselves as part of the continent. And, as one of the interviewees commented, the government had not educated South Africans to understand how much the continent had contributed and sacrificed to end apartheid:
“They (South Africans) are not really African – they are their own Africa.”
A deeper problem articulated by those we talked to is of a growing lack of trust in South Africa’s bona fides. The country claims to represent the continent in BRICS and the G20. But there’s a sense that very little benefit accrues to the rest of the continent.
The dominant view is that South Africa does not use these platforms to create or promote opportunities for wider African involvement. Rather, its own economic interests always enjoy priority. This, despite South Africa’s rhetoric of ubuntu (human kindness) and the African Agenda.
Related to this was the perception that South Africa behaved in a contradictory way when it came to the African Union (A.U.) and the U.N. Security Council.
A third issue mentioned by all the interviewees was South Africa’s conduct within the A.U., and the extent to which it projected a kind of “big brother, big bully” approach.
There is still strong resentment about the way South Africa ran its campaign to get Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma elected as chairperson of the A.U. One interviewee explained how South Africa regularly berated other countries, particularly smaller Francophone states, for their “colonial mentality,” implying that their support for then-presiding chairperson Jean Ping for a second term was tied up with their servility to France.
There was also a sense of South Africa undermining the continental position on the development of an African Standby Force. Instead, the country is insisting that a rapid response capability should be developed – the so-called African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises.
Leading through listening
From a South African perspective, most of these allegations could be denied and explained through “hard facts and figures.”
The country has invested in promoting peace and stability in war-torn countries such as Burundi, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It’s considered by some observers to contribute more than the U.N.-required 0.7 percent of GDP annually to development aid on the continent.
But that’s not the point. In the diplomatic world perceptions matter as much as facts in the formulation of policy responses and the constraints on success.
The failure of policymakers to try and understand the perceptions of those at the receiving end of their policies can come at a cost. It can also frustrate well-intended policies and even lead to deep resentment and tension between countries.
It may do South Africans, whether ordinary citizens or foreign policy officials, well to ask themselves how others see them – and why. And the country’s policymakers would benefit from trying to understand how their actions are perceived by others.
What are your thoughts? Please comment below and share this post!