Composers, conductors and players: Harmony and discord in South African foreign policy making TIM HUGHES KONRAD-ADENAUER-STIFTUNG • OCCASIONAL PAPERS • JOHANNESBURG • SEPTEMBER 2004 © KAS, 2004 All rights reserved While copyright in this publication as a whole is vested in the Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung, copyright in the text rests with the individual authors, and no paper may be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission, in writing, of both authors and the publisher. It should be noted that any opinions expressed are the responsibility of the individual authors and that the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung does not necessarily subscribe to the opinions of contributors. ISBN: 0-620-33027-9 Published by: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 60 Hume Road Dunkeld 2196 Johannesburg Republic of South Africa PO Box 1383 Houghton 2041 Johannesburg Republic of South Africa Telephone: (+27 +11) 214-2900 Telefax: (+27 +11) 214-2913/4 E-mail: [email protected] www.kas.org.za Editing, DTP and production: Tyrus Text and Design Cover design: Heather Botha Reproduction: Rapid Repro Printing: Stups Printing Foreword The process of foreign policy making in South Africa during its decade of democracy has been subject to a complex interplay of competing forces. Policy shifts of the post-apartheid period not only necessitated new visions for the future but also new structures. The creation of a value-based new identity in foreign policy needed to be accompanied by a transformation of institutions relevant for the decision-making process in foreign policy. Looking at foreign policy in the era of President Mbeki, however, it becomes obvious that Max Weber’s observation that “in a modern state the actual ruler is necessarily and unavoidably the bureaucracy, since power is exercised neither through parliamentary speeches nor monarchical enumerations but through the routines of administration”,* no longer holds in the South African context. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs neither set the agenda nor dominate the discussion; it is mainly the Presidency that drives the discourse. Furthermore, the conflict that one encounters between the Executive and Legislative branches in the realm of foreign policy in consolidated democracies seems to be absent on the South African scene. So far, parliament and South African political parties have remained substantially calm in the discussion on foreign policy. With the exception of the stance on Robert Mugabe’s regime, Parliament has not become polarised nor have the political parties faced deep divisions over other substantial issues of foreign policy. For a political foundation such as the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), which is dedicated to the promotion of democracy, the aforementioned situation raises questions about who controls, influences and balances government, and more specifically the Presidency, in its foreign policy decision- iii iv HARMONY AND DISCORD IN SOUTH AFRICAN FOREIGN POLICY MAKING making process. Pertinent questions to be asked are: Who formulates the national interest that transforms into foreign policy, and who holds the relevant institutions accountable in the implementation phase? In general, the most appropriate instrument would be parliament - but parliament needs to be capacitated and informed to perform its role in the country’s decision-making process. With this study, KAS attempts to contribute to this by shedding light on the actors and processes of South African foreign policy. The office of KAS, South Africa is extremely grateful to the South African Institute of International Affairs and particularly to the author and researcher, Tim Hughes, who over a period of more than two years enthusiastically dedicated his time to this project and cooperated closely with KAS in Johannesburg. Andrea E Ostheimer Acting Resident Representative Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Johannesburg, South Africa September 2004 ENDNOTE * Max Weber, Economy and society: An outcome of interpretative analogy, ed. by Günther Roth & Claus Wittich, Vol. 2, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978, p 1383. Preface As the world joined South Africa in celebrating ten remarkable years of democracy in 2004, authors rushed to evaluate the country’s considerable achievements. Along with a decade of democratic consolidation and national reconciliation, among the most noteworthy developments has been South Africa’s rise to prominence in international relations. There is no comparable example of a country emerging from such deep isolation to one not just of acceptance, but also of global leadership. The South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) in partnership with the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) in South Africa has produced two studies examining recent South African foreign policy. The first, Apartheid past, renaissance future, is a collection of scholarly analyses of aspects of foreign policy over the past decade. By and large this study is evaluative and examines policy outcomes. This second study is more concerned with the formulation of foreign policy and examines the role and input of actors within four key areas, namely: conflict diamonds; the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD); Zimbabwe; and the Middle East. Each of the policy areas is of some significance in itself, but each also permits the examination of a range of actors from the Presidency, the Department of Foreign Affairs, political parties, business, trade unions and policy research institutes. The study drew on the experience and input of these actors and foreign policy experts, as well as on the discussions, presentations, findings and outcomes of a series of workshops convened by SAIIA and funded by KAS in Johannesburg over a two-year period. The research also incorporated a number of international research field trips to the United States, the United Kingdom, southern, western and North Africa as well as the Middle East. The study makes no pretence at being comprehensive, but is rather a set of v vi HARMONY AND DISCORD IN SOUTH AFRICAN FOREIGN POLICY MAKING policy snapshots that seeks to illuminate how different actors make their respective inputs into policy, with varying degrees of efficacy. As a research deliverable, however, this publication is meant as an introductory study for the use of, among others, members of parliament and particularly those serving on the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs It is hoped that the study will contribute to a better understanding of South African foreign policy formulation and will serve to enhance the role of the committee and of parliament in the foreign policy debate. Two sets of thanks need to be expressed. The first is to interviewees in South Africa and beyond. One of the privileges and rewards of research work is that of being granted an interview by people often pressed for time and to receive the benefit of their wisdom and insights. Despite the inaccessibility of the South African Presidency during this research programme, deputy ministers, trade union leaders, business leaders, diplomats, journalists and fellow researchers all gave their time freely and fulsomely. I thank them individually and collectively. The second set of thanks goes to four colleagues who have sustained me during this research: the first, Acting Country Head of KAS in South Africa Andrea Ostheimer, who has throughout remained a source of remarkable support, patience and guidance. Her predecessor Dr Thomas Knirsch was responsible for the original approval of the research, and during his tenure in South Africa became both colleague and valued friend. Despite her impossible workload, SAIIA Director of Studies Elizabeth Sidiropoulos has always made time for advice, reflection and input into my work and has done so with devilishly good humour. Finally, to my friend and colleague SAIIA National Director Dr Greg Mills; I owe a considerable debt of gratitude for the trust and confidence shown in me during my years with the institute – such integrity and friendship are rare. Tim Hughes Cape Town September 2004 Table of contents Foreword iii Preface v The author x Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 Foreign policy formulation: Theoretical and conceptual tools 7 1.1 Elements to foreign policy making – the bureaucracy 7 1.2 Values and beliefs in policy formulation 8 1.3 Traditional understandings of foreign policy formulation 11 CHAPTER 2 Actors in South African foreign policy making 15 2.1 The Presidency and foreign policy making 15 2.2 Reengineering of the Department of Foreign Affairs 18 2.3 Non-governmental actors and the foreign policy formulation process 22 2.3.1 ANC foreign policy structures 29 2.3.2 Civil society engagement with South African foreign policy 30 • Role, function and input of ‘think tanks’ in foreign 31 policy formulation 2.3.3 Non-governmental access, input and influence in the 35 foreign policy formulation process 2.3.3.1 Business 36 2.3.3.2 Organised labour 45 2.4 Summary of findings 46 viii HARMONY AND DISCORD IN SOUTH AFRICAN FOREIGN POLICY MAKING CHAPTER 3 South African foreign policy and conflict diamonds 49 3.1 The South African government’s role in policy making 54 3.2 The unique role of non-governmental organisations 59 3.3 The diamond industry’s role in policy formulation 64 3.4 The Kimberley Process – from conflict to policy implementation 66 3.5 Conclusion 68 CHAPTER 4 South African foreign policy formulation and NEPAD 73 4.1 NEPAD in summary 73 4.2 More than old wine in a new bottle? 75 4.3 The centrality