The debate about whether South Africa’s membership of Bric is appropriate or not, to which Drs Mills Soko and Mzukisi Qobo have contributed in their article ‘Creating more walls than Brics” (Mail & Guardian January 7 to 13 2011), is not surprising.
In fact, it is healthy and can serve only to enrich our understanding of our system of international relations. It is in this spirit that I wish to debate with them as compatriot scholars for whom I harbour a lot of respect.
From the inception of the idea of the Bric views similar to theirs were expressed about the original four members.
Each was analysed by scholars and other pundits and the early conclusion was that they did not fit together. One well-known economist even invoked the line from Sesame Street, ‘one of these things is not like the other”. Yet over time and with the two summits that it held in Brazil and Russia, these pessimistic views began to change.
I would suggest, therefore, that South Africa’s membership of Bric should at least be measured by three factors: the imperatives of a diversified foreign policy; the substantive agenda that it has set for itself and the other important attributes that South Africa possesses which will allow it to make a significant contribution to the Bric agenda.
Foreign policy in the 21st century is a multidimensional endeavour as states use different avenues to pursue their various interests. Once a state has analysed its national interests it maps out the tactical and strategic guides for pursuing them, central to which is alliance building. There are issues that can best be addressed only through bilateral contacts and there are others that require plurilateral and multilateral forums and this is not contradictory.
In her announcement of South Africa’s invitation to the next Bric summit, international relations minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane referred to the diversity of South Africa’s foreign policy interests.
The formations through which states organise themselves also evolve over time, as is evident from the emergence, in the past few years, of the Group of 20 and Bric itself.
‘Bilateral contradictions’
Furthermore, it is possible that two states belonging to the same grouping will have significant bilateral contradictions and yet will be able to cohere in pursuit of the broader interests of the group to which they belong with others.
This should answer Soko’s and Qobo’s concern about the possible failure of Bric to have a common agenda because of geopolitical tensions between some of its members. Surely by now it should be clear to all that there is no political purity on this Earth and those who use it as a benchmark for alliance building might as well wait for the world hereafter.
Therefore, that South Africa has complex economic relations with the individual Bric members, as Soko and Qobo point out, is hardly an argument for it not to be part of Bric.
A careful reading would in fact show that their analysis could apply to any of the other Brics, especially Brazil. Yet Bric has already met twice at summit level and agreed on its agenda.
Could it perhaps be that subconsciously, Soko and Qobo even doubt our continued membership of the African Union given the obvious diversity and internal contradictions bedevilling virtually every aspect of the membership of this important instrument for the advancement of the African agenda? I hope not.
It is perhaps when we examine the substantive agenda of the Brics countries that we should realise that South Africa fits. The 2010 Bric summit joint statement focused on the reform of global governance, the work of the G20, international trade, development, energy and climate change, among others.
These are issues of global concern which have been an important component of South Africa’s foreign policy for many years. By nature, they are also challenging, require flexibility, adaptation and alliances to advance. Importantly, South Africa has garnered experience on these themes which can be shared in Brics for mutual benefit.
‘Advocates of reform
On global governance South Africa, India and Brazil seek to be permanent members of a reformed United Nations Security Council, to which Russia and China already belong. All five are advocates of reform of the international financial institutions.
The agenda set by the two Bric summits also means that we should move away from seeing Bric today only in terms of its original conception by Jim O’Neill. The countries came together and set an agenda for themselves, which might not be what O’Niell originally conceived when he coined the term.
Beyond the global issues, South Africa could benefit from the concrete projects of Bric in areas such as agriculture, science, statistics, development finance institutions, security and justice. Bric agriculture ministers have agreed to cooperate in agricultural technology development and exchange.
Under the auspices of Bric, meetings of the scientific and research centres of the four countries have been convened. These are just two examples of some of the specific sectoral initiatives from which South Africa could benefit through its participation in Bric.
Which country would miss out on an opportunity to cooperate with Russia, China, India and Brazil on agricultural technology development and science? These will complement the work of international tripartite grouping Ibsa (India, Brazil, South Africa).
SA’s attributes
While the discourse on Bric has focused on the sizes of the economies, populations and future projections of stature, there are other important attributes which South Africa brings to the group.
The 2010-2011 Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum ranks South Africa favourably in relation to the other Bric countries. The 2010 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development World Investment Report puts South Africa in the top 20 of priority economies for foreign direct investment in the world.
Among developing countries, we are still the biggest investor in the African continent. This means that although our economy is small in relation to other Bric members, we have attributes that have positioned us well in the world and which will allow us to bring special insights to the work of Bric.
It also goes without saying that since our foreign policy puts priority on the African continent, we are uniquely placed to bring the African perspective to the many global forums in which we participate.
It is perhaps on this latter point that the analysis of Soko and Qobo falls short. They underestimate the current strategic import of the African continent both to the established northern powers as well as to the powers of the south.
They underestimate the potential that South Africa holds as a partner in unlocking the opportunity that Africa presents. It is also precisely because of the strategic centrality of the African agenda to our system of international relations that we cannot be innocent bystanders when the opportunity for engagement exists.
That there are challenges that face Bric is without doubt. That there is need for our country to finesse its strategy of engagement in Bric so as to maximise the benefits for our country, our region and the continent, is also a ‘no brainer”.
The challenge is for all of us to marshal our collective intellectual and strategic capacities and creatively respond to the exciting opportunities that these challenges present.
I am heartened by the certainty that Soko and Qobo will rise to this challenge.
Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba is the director general of the department of international relations and cooperation