Fascinating article, thank you. Does it sightly skirt around the fact that South Africa used to have far more influence than it does now because it used to be clearly more functional than any other African state, with a massively superior economy, and that is no longer the case?
I am in no way an expert on this, but post-Nasser to early 2000s? The endpoint of which brings it uncomfortably close to a timeline that fits with the pro-Apartheid perspective of a successful white run state that kept going for a few years after that evil regime was dismantled before slowly falling apart. But a) that ignores earlier history b) never take the need to win arguments against the loathsome so far that uncomfortable facts... you know all of this, up to e), f), g).
South Africa was influential when it was relatively rich, and getting relatively richer. The former is less true than it used to be, and the latter is no longer true. So South Africa's influence has waned. Everything else is footnotes.
I am not sure what you mean. Per capita income in South Africa is higher today than it was during apartheid.
Furthermore, apartheid South Africa had little to do with the rest of the Continent (save for a few countries that traded with it). They were not in the OAU. So the idea of influence really makes little sense before June 1994.
The GDP of South Africa has a bit more than doubled in that time; that's really unimpressive. The rate of increase of GDP, both per capita and in total, has been poor.
I don't think it's controversial to say that apartheid South Africa had a lot of influence on other African countries. Malign influence, exercised outside inter-governmental bodies, but still influence. I don't think it should be controversial to say that that influence depended not just on the wealth of South Africa, but on the perception that it was a successful country in a failing continent; and that now that the perception is that it is a failing country in a continent that is increasingly seen as the future of the global economy, its influence will inevitably be decreased.
If RSA could even lead SADC more effectively in the lengthy laundry list you mention it might learn enough to help move the AU forward on coordinated positions.
I do wonder if it is too liberal on social issues but be accepted as a leader of the other parts, even of SADC.
But when you are busy with your snout in the trough or looking for another trough and the country collapsing all around you, the ANC haven't really got time or have priority of international thinking and diplomacy.
After the disgrace of Zuma Ramaphosa was thought to right the wrongs. But he hasn't. Things are worse.
This post claims to address South Africa’s policies at the highest diplomatic political and economic levels, yet ignores the elephant in the room and fails to discuss trade & investment with any form of accuracy, apart from one hushed reference to ‘losing the US market’, as if
It is plausible to state, impossible to overstate, the relevance of the fact that China is the country’s largest trade and investment partner, by a large margin
To describe membership of BRICS as a ‘dalliance’ is contempt masked in faux flippant
This post is the little brother of those which puzzle, frown and condescend while treating as ‘incomprehensible’ the changes in alliance made in many countries in Africa, especially with regard to security
And contains threats, such as - ‘The fact that Washington chose to publicly confront South Africa over the alleged weapons sale suggests that continued friendliness with Russia is likely to come with a price.’ – which contradicts the bon mot the US invented for itself and which has never disappointed – to be an US enemy etc etc but to be a friend is fatal’
The content and attitude expressed by the author is neocolonialism at it’s dullest
Fascinating article, thank you. Does it sightly skirt around the fact that South Africa used to have far more influence than it does now because it used to be clearly more functional than any other African state, with a massively superior economy, and that is no longer the case?
What time period do you have in mind?
I am in no way an expert on this, but post-Nasser to early 2000s? The endpoint of which brings it uncomfortably close to a timeline that fits with the pro-Apartheid perspective of a successful white run state that kept going for a few years after that evil regime was dismantled before slowly falling apart. But a) that ignores earlier history b) never take the need to win arguments against the loathsome so far that uncomfortable facts... you know all of this, up to e), f), g).
South Africa was influential when it was relatively rich, and getting relatively richer. The former is less true than it used to be, and the latter is no longer true. So South Africa's influence has waned. Everything else is footnotes.
I am not sure what you mean. Per capita income in South Africa is higher today than it was during apartheid.
Furthermore, apartheid South Africa had little to do with the rest of the Continent (save for a few countries that traded with it). They were not in the OAU. So the idea of influence really makes little sense before June 1994.
The GDP of South Africa has a bit more than doubled in that time; that's really unimpressive. The rate of increase of GDP, both per capita and in total, has been poor.
I don't think it's controversial to say that apartheid South Africa had a lot of influence on other African countries. Malign influence, exercised outside inter-governmental bodies, but still influence. I don't think it should be controversial to say that that influence depended not just on the wealth of South Africa, but on the perception that it was a successful country in a failing continent; and that now that the perception is that it is a failing country in a continent that is increasingly seen as the future of the global economy, its influence will inevitably be decreased.
Post-Nasser? That’s a super-weird time reference for South Africa.
If RSA could even lead SADC more effectively in the lengthy laundry list you mention it might learn enough to help move the AU forward on coordinated positions.
I do wonder if it is too liberal on social issues but be accepted as a leader of the other parts, even of SADC.
But when you are busy with your snout in the trough or looking for another trough and the country collapsing all around you, the ANC haven't really got time or have priority of international thinking and diplomacy.
After the disgrace of Zuma Ramaphosa was thought to right the wrongs. But he hasn't. Things are worse.
This post claims to address South Africa’s policies at the highest diplomatic political and economic levels, yet ignores the elephant in the room and fails to discuss trade & investment with any form of accuracy, apart from one hushed reference to ‘losing the US market’, as if
It is plausible to state, impossible to overstate, the relevance of the fact that China is the country’s largest trade and investment partner, by a large margin
To describe membership of BRICS as a ‘dalliance’ is contempt masked in faux flippant
This post is the little brother of those which puzzle, frown and condescend while treating as ‘incomprehensible’ the changes in alliance made in many countries in Africa, especially with regard to security
And contains threats, such as - ‘The fact that Washington chose to publicly confront South Africa over the alleged weapons sale suggests that continued friendliness with Russia is likely to come with a price.’ – which contradicts the bon mot the US invented for itself and which has never disappointed – to be an US enemy etc etc but to be a friend is fatal’
The content and attitude expressed by the author is neocolonialism at it’s dullest
"Of course South Africa has every right, as a sovereign state, to pursue foreign policies that advance its strategic interests".
Not according to some, Ken. Check . . . https://les7eb.substack.com/p/washingtons-ukraina-grandioznaya
Kenya rates a mention. BTW - You certainly deserve more reader comments.