South Africa's foriegn policy is perplexing: It's one thing to support a next door tyrant (Mugabe), but why support Assad in Syria, or Bashir in Sudan, Iran and even to join China & Russia in supporting more Internet censorship ?

Simple.

Foreign investment. China had no qualms (did not intefere) with the internal affairs of other nations, as it expected the same attitude to be applied to itself. China is a huge buyer and seller, Africa is a huge untapped market for natural resources and a market for Chinese exports. The relationship between China and Africa is uncluttered with finer politics and intricate foreign policy.

It is a successful relationship, and is working very well, much to the dismay of Western eyes. Try not to impose your beliefs on their actions, it is purely business.

And reason SA supports Iran,Syria & Sudan ?

btw - China interfered before and will interfere again. realpolitik and all that.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

South Africa didn't grant visa for H.H The Dalai Lama to attend the 80th birthday of fellow Nobel laureate Desmond M. Tutu. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/wo...ica-visit.html
to please China?

Iran is the enemy of the west, by your logic SA should also be againt the west.

why ?

The dark days of Apartheid are not easily forgotten...There was very limited support for sanctions and very little help abroad (officially, and in effective volume) for the ANC. The SA government of the time were fighting Russians/Cubans in Angola, and thus enjoyed Western backing, SA was also a strategic partner in that area of the World, with massive gold output, oil from coal technology and shared weapons technology with your own Israel. It was a Western government by any measure. The new incoming government would not forget the lack of support, it's Marxist upbringing and lack of love for anything White easily meant it's eyes would turn East for a partner.

Also, Chinese goods are cheap at all levels, Africa has a limited budget.

IMHO. SA plays real politic like China.

Ah, that's alright then - out with the west, in with the east. Zimbabwe 2 beckons.

> Iran ? Iran may be an interesting trading partner for the RSA
> Syria ? Difficult to say, but the RSA is not well established in the Mashreek and possibly sees Syria as a foothold --- I however do not believe that they too much like Dr Assad
> Sudan ? Easy. General Bashir with his policies, mostly giving independence to South Sudan, overnight has become a power-broker on the continent. He and his country on one side have left "Black Africa" and very clearly joined the Arab World but at the other side "sit" on a strategical position. Sudan (the present one I mean) has oil and (as South Sudan needs the seaport of Port Sudan) even is quite heavy in this regard. So that the RSA treading softly in regard to "Uncle Bashir" is understandable !

Your conclusion is wrong as your basic consideration is wrong. Iran is NOT an enemy of the West. USA&Israel are NOT "the West".

Israel indentified with and supported the apartheid regime. Iran did the opposite.

NO, the RSA has economic substance and an economic position South Rhodesia / Zimbabwe never had.


the map alone shows the vast difference. True, what both countries have in common is that the present governments had to fight their way through against the West and that many local office holders got educated in the Soviet Union and in the PRC

First thing: When you say South Africa's foreign policy, you must realize you are actually talking about the ANC's foreign policy.

Mugabe: ZANU-FP shares liberation and anti-colonial ideology with ANC and provided safe haven for ANC operatives during Apartheid years. Mugabe is still seen as an African liberation hero. [Ideology & History]

Assad: Enemy of Israel, who is enemy of Palestinians, whom the ANC sympathises with because of their freedom struggle against a perceived injustice, similar to the ANC's own history. [Enemy of my ideological enemy]

Bashir: Borderline support, but what swings the vote is "The West"'s fierce opposition of his regime and especially The West's insistence to try him for crimes against humanity, which is for the ANC typical of the selective morality and generally arrogant stance of The West towards Africa. Supporting Assad is seen as showing pan-African solidarity. [History]

Iran: Enemy of Israel - and Jews per implication - who is viewed as the economically dominant, abusive oppressive minority (read:Afrikaners) "bad guys". [Enemy of my ideological enemy]

China & Russia: Perceived as champions of the downtrodden, exploited and powerless 3rd world, practically an axis of economic and political power opposing and challenging The West's oppressive hegemony. [Realpolitik & History]

Looks like the ANC are no better than the previous regime. time for a new round of sanctions ?

So easy to joke when you don't have family and friends there that can not afford to live through another round of sanctions

Maybe not, but they are democratically elected, and loved they are.

Also, I do not think the idea of sanctions is to elicit a change in foreign policy, do you ?

(As for the previous regime, Israel had a lot of trade and active relations with them, Uranium,small Arms , Nuclear Technology , Armoured Vehicles, Long Range Artillery, Avionic upgrades to the Mirage , Look-To-Shoot helmets etc the list goes on, you were both surrounded by enemies and had a lot in common, if you cannot re-kindle that relationship with the new government, look to yourselves as to why not. SA is playing a vital role in Africa, they are showing signs of mature diplomacy, rational foreign policy decisions, and playing the balancing game in the hardest continent very very well.

I wish their fledgling superpower responsibilities all the best.)

Its kinda hard to understand the policy of the country when you are not from there and do not understand the mindset.
I am not saying that I agree with what is happening, but consider this. You want to rent an apartment for example. One renter just requires you to sign the dotted line and nothing else, the other requires a credit check, your bank transcript for the last 6 months, a reference letter from your previous landlord and what ever other terms for the rental. Where are you gonna go. The former renter may not be the best around (or worth it in the long run for you) but in the short run it makes sense to go with them.
That is what I think happens with African countries. The West always has strings attached to whatever aid they give, where as the East and Middle East are simple (but they probably, neigh, definitely have ulterior motives)

At the end of the day the leaders are doing what they can with what they have. You cant simple impose "first world ideals" in a 3rd world context. Too many points are subjective.


Dude sanctions may seem like a good way of putting a government under pressure but the only people who really feel the pinch are the regular Joes on the street (I am from Zimbabwe, so I know all about the effect of sanctions). In my opinion sanctions dont really address the problem at hand, but are more of a leverage tactic. You dont do this, so we will do this. Its kinda school yard to me.

How is supprting war criminals and the usual African tyrants mature and rational ?

ANC are simply racist: "Black good, Asians tolerable, whites out".

As for Superpower - difficult status to achieve when you can't even get water and electricity to most citizens (never mind the treatment meted out to refugees).

Sanctions - of course sanctions can be used as a foreign policy tool. In the case of ANC's south africa - their internal human rights record is not much better than official apartheid.

Elections - the ANC has a very undemocratic record when it comes to media and have yet to be challenged by a serious opposition.

My point was that it was very popular to support sanctions against Apartheid, but no so popular to support sanctions against the current regime.

Sanctions never brought down any government, no matter how tough.