Address by Prof Chris Landsberg, South African National NRF Chair: African Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, University of Johannesburg, at the FW de Klerk Foundation’s Coalition Government Conference, 12 July 2024

Madame De Klerk, good morning. Thank you for having me and may the soul of that stalwart rest in peace. Good morning to you all, colleagues, all protocol observed. Now, I’m going to do the unthinkable this morning: I’m going to take on Sizwe. (He’s actually a successor of mine in two respects. At Wits University, they decided they could get a better, younger, learned man to replace me. And Sizwe is also a successor of mine at that overrated university on that small island state there in the Atlantic, Oxford University. But he’s much brighter than I am.)

I’m going to talk about the GNU / grand coalition and foreign policy, but I want to make a few observations about just the lexicon of GNU and foreign policy. So, Ebrahim Fakir and I, a colleague of mine, two weeks before the election, we wrote a piece on the GNU and I can tell you, nobody gave us any inside scoop. There was not anyone at the time who could give us an inside scoop. We actually asked the question whether a GNU could be the solution to the malaise faced by South Africa. We dubbed it a “democratic governance malaise” that we faced.

Prof Gumede, I wish to state clearly, we’re not claiming any credit that the current head of state decided to take our idea and present it to the country. That would be arrogant. Let me fall with the door in the house. The representative of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung almost gave us an ominous warning and said this may be the calm before the proverbial storm. I wish to state to you, you don’t have to wait very long. Literally, I think in the next 18 hours, it’s about to happen, because we’re having the first cabinet Llekgotla tomorrow. And I can tell you on a very serious note, there are two parties entering those talks tomorrow – the cabinet lekgotla. One of the two parties (and it’s not the one that my colleague had a go at, you know, the former dominant one, it’s the ones wearing blue), they are going in there with a view that there was no government for the last 30 years. Listen carefully, not that there was a weak government, not that there was a failing government, but that there was no government in South Africa for the last 30 years. Now, I can tell you, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you enter with that approach, it’s not going to be a good start.

Let me go further. Not only was there no government, but tomorrow they wish to approach the Lekgotla – and anything that comes after tomorrow – on a clean slate: I.e. That there were no policies, no foreign policy, no economic policy, no social policy, nothing. There were no policies. There are no policies. As for all these ministers who, for the last 10 days after the inauguration, went around giving speeches, they were giving speeches based on no policy.

How did we get to the point that there are 11 [parties in the GNU]? But as George Orwell warned us, all of us are equal, but two are more equal than the other nine. That’s literally what he said. I suggest to you how we got there (and I would like Prof Gumede to take this up, just briefly, later on): It is my view that it was the genuine strategic, well-thought-through intention of the DA to craft a government of national unity or a coalition government pact between itself, the IFP and the ANC. And then, whatever your agreement on “sufficient consensus” is, after that it doesn’t matter. The ANC will forever be outvoted on everything, because two of the three would have 66% of the vote on anything.

Christo van der Rheede and I conspired under the cover of darkness with other friends, behind the scenes, after the elections and tried to see how things were unfolding. Some actors would call us and engage with us. What the DA did not anticipate coming was this thing called GNU. They thought it was just a throwaway concept by the ANC. They really thought the ANC meant “ganu”, not “GNU.” And when they opened their eyes, McKenzie had signed before them. Literally, he signed before the DA. Then three became four, when Patricia de Lille (former member of the DA) joined, and so on, and so on, and then there were 11.

I’m suggesting to you on a serious note that what the DA had in mind was a Moonshot Pact Lite, Moonshot Pact 2.0, together with the ANC, constituting a government. And many people did not take this idea of a government of national unity seriously. I wish to be clear from the onset:; I’m not suggesting there is unity at the moment prevailing in that government, but I cannot help but quote Sizwe: “The ANC lost the election, but they won the negotiation.”

And yet, the DA had a much more erudite, smart, strategic group of negotiators and they did not take this GNU thing seriously. And who might save the day as of tonight at midnight? The small ones – especially that Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, who, as he speaks, does sports and arts. Let me now come to my topic in the time allocated: South Africa’s foreign policy over the last 30 years.

Well, I mean, there’s a party that says we didn’t have a foreign policy. I just happen to have studied it, so I have to pretend there was a foreign policy over the last 30 years. But on a serious note, there are three major differences on foreign policy tomorrow. Three, listen carefully. And it’s not by accident because we do our homework behind the scenes.

One: Apparently, non-alignment means neutrality. Let me put this in practical terms: When Lady R, that lady rocked up here in Simon’s Town, you know, the lady in red, that ship we had non-alignment, but the ANC was accused that our non-alignment was biassed. It was aligned with Russia against Ukraine. We gave okapis, pangas and weapons to Russia against the Ukrainians, but they did not dispute that we subscribe to a policy of non-alignment, which simply means positive neutrality. If you’re going to be neutral, you’re positive to influence both sides of the divide to come, hopefully, to a mutually inclusive resolution of a conflict.

Then came the ICC indictment against President Putin and we were even going to use ADT when he arrived at Cape Town International Airport. But he will not dare set foot in South Africa. And then one country did the unthinkable with the ICJ and Israel. Everybody was waiting for one country out of 196 UN members to take an ally of the Western world to the ICC and the ICJ and all of a sudden, non-alignment equals neutrality. So, because it’s Israel, we now have to be neutral. Don’t even be non-aligned by engaging both sides, right? For a two-state solution, don’t touch the people from the Anglo-Saxon Western World and Western alliances, because they apparently are not prone to violations of human rights, genocide and crimes against humanity. And South Africa is yet to pay a price for that.

Let me move to a second concept in our foreign policy. Maybe one of the most understated. It was very interesting when you played that beautiful video about the FW de Klerk Foundation: There was almost unanimity amongst them about what constitutes the greatest threat to our democracy: It is not whether elections are free and fair and held on time. We have shown it again. South Africa doesn’t face a democracy crisis. South Africa faces a crisis of democratic governance: How resources and power are distributed in society after elections, after the exercises of democracy. But there was almost unanimity that excruciating poverty, unbelievable levels of joblessness and this trophy we win every year hands down: The most unequal society in the world, where the gap between rich and poor is greater than anywhere in the world. (It’s the only competition we have with Brazil. We can’t compete with them in soccer; they’ve taught us a few lessons.)

Surely Democratic Alliance, surely ANC, surely Government of National Unity the one thing we can agree on as a group of South Africans, including those of us in this room, is what constitutes the most vital needs of this society: Defending our democratic order, defending non-racialism, calling every single one in this room African. White African, Indian African, Coloured African, Black African, but we are Africans. Why should we still have debates about that? But uplifting the quality of life of our people, if we allow this schism to continue in this society, I’m afraid, five years from now, we’re going to have the same debate.

And the private sector had better join this debate and not only the debate about how much our economy should grow by. There is no state in the world without this thing called “national interest”. And the primary goal of every state, first and foremost, is to make sure that your society and your people live in safety and security. Surely, that is something that the government tomorrow can agree on.

African agenda. Apparently, we didn’t have an African agenda. I really liked the piece written by Moeletsi Mbeki the other day that said we failed in our Africa policy. But we did have an Africa policy, there is no doubt about that. There was a time, 15 years ago, when we were the number one peacekeeper on the continent of Africa. The greatest contribution of South Africa to the world, is not the promotion of human rights, but that we took the model of De Klerk and Mandela, the ANC and the National Party, and all those who went to this gambling house down the road (yeah, it’s just down the road), where our Constitution was negotiated, and we came up with an inclusive solution to an apparently intractable situation. From Zimbabwe to the DRC, to the Comoros, to Burundi, to Côte d’Ivoire, to Myanmar, to Ireland and the list goes on and on. If there’s one contribution this country has made to the world, we never shut the door, as Roelf Meyer will tell you. I see Roelf Meyer and together with Ebrahim, may his soul rest in peace, Roelf and others travelled the world and racked up astonishing Voyager miles, going from country to country, to show this model that intractable problems can be solved through inclusive arrangements of government.

Now, can the one that starts tomorrow, the Llekgotla. Can they start with unity? Just make a pledge for unity. Now I want to come to two very important points and here I give former President Thabo Mbeki credit. Alec Erwin, the former Minister of Trade and Industry, used to call it the “butterfly strategy” in South Africa’s foreign policy. Imagine a butterfly. Don’t look at me; I’m in no shape to be a butterfly. If I wanted to say “elephant,”, I would have used the example of an elephant. But the body of the butterfly is located in Africa. The two wings of the butterfly point to Asia and South America. The tentacles of that butterfly reach to the Americas and the head to Europe.

If there’s one brilliant contribution the DA could make to our “non-foreign policy” foreign policy, it’s to help bring about a rapprochement: An easing of tensions between South Africa and the Western world that has gone astray over the last five years or so. But I’m not going to back off from making the following point: Part of the reason why the DA drove such a hard bargain – and I’m going to repeat it twice – is because part of the deal that the DA had to secure with the ANC by cutting out the Red Berets and others, no matter who they represent (and incidentally, many of the policies that people in that video quoted were EFF policies, such as land, poverty, inequality, but let’s leave that aside because apparently we didn’t have choices; there was only one train) I suggest to you that part of the problem is that that deal was cut in Washington, D.C. America’s influence over this country and over certain partners in this government of national unity is far too great. And what some parties should do, including the ANC in Russia and the ANC in China, is cut your political links with these parties ideologically and go for the economic national interests. But there’s one Western power whose influence is far too great on this country’s destiny, its future and the decisions it makes. And the next four months are going to be interesting. In fact, let’s see if one president is still in power by next Tuesday. But irrespective of what the outcome of that is, America’s role in South Africa’s foreign policy brings me to a very, very sensitive issue: The amount of American money that is currently flying around in this country, going to certain NGOs to keep a countervailing opposition on particular parties in the government of national unity, is astounding. It goes into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Let’s be even-handed: If we want an independent, autonomous, respected society, then let’s have good relations with all parts of the world, including the West.

And I conclude on the issue of global governance. No state in the world wishes to see a global order that does not speak to its interests, whether it’s economic power or political power. When South Africa asks for the reform of the United Nations Security Council, it’s not the only member of the Global South that’s doing that. There’s a plenitude of countries doing that. When South Africa asks for the transformation of certain institutions in the global economic realm, that should be understood.

But I end where two of my colleagues who preceded me suggested: The ANC is in for a rough ride tomorrow. A rough time on the issue of professionalisation of the state (and in the case of my domain and other domains), the professionalisation of the diplomatic corps of this country. But is it also rational for one party, under the banner of professionalisation of the state and the diplomatic corps, to say that every single Director General and Deputy Director General must reapply for their jobs? They must be fired immediately and then they must reapply for the job? Surely, we can find a better way to re-professionalise the state.

One thing we can agree on is that after the recall of former President Mbeki in 2008, what happened? (It wasn’t just Cyril Ramaphosa circa 2017 and Cyril Ramaphosa circa 24.) All ANC leaders after that lost control over the state, because they became preoccupied with the party. Can all the parties in government now go on and professionalise and build a capable developmental state?

And just to give you the seven attributes of any capable developmental state – and there’s a piece that Prof Gumede and others have written about this:

A developmental state first and foremost, whether you are a Leninist, a Trotskyist, or you believe in Adam Smith, it does not matter. A developmental, capable state prioritises economic growth, irrespective of where you are ideologically. Growth.

Secondly, a developmental state prioritises education, education and more education.

Thirdly, it prioritises basic health, basic healthcare in society. And the politics over this National Health Insurance Act (“NHI”) is going to be interesting: The problem is, we do not have money. The state currently is bankrupt for everything, even for the appointment of ambassadors. And I harbour ambitions to become South Africa’s first ambassador to Cape Town.

The fifth characteristic of a developmental state is, (and listen carefully), a capable, autonomous civil service incapable of being captured by private interests (whether it’s the Guptas or this infamous Stellenbosch group). A state bureaucracy that is not capable of being captured by foreign interests.

And finally, a capable state is a state that is run by the best-educated, well-trained in society. What prevents us from taking some of those civil servants that are there, re-educating them and putting them on fast tracks so that we don’t have to replace them with unqualified people?

Thank you very much. I tried to compete with Sizwe and, of course, with Ms Mavuso.