Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2007-02-28 Reporter: Jonathan Katzenellenbogen

The Dangers of SA’s Anti-Americanism

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2007-02-28

Reporter

 Jonathan Katzenellenbogen

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

SA’s relations with the US in the era of President Thabo Mbeki have never been good; but they are now rapidly deteriorating. On the Iranian nuclear issue, the global war on terrorism, United Nations (UN) reform and the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, SA is becoming increasingly strident in its opposition to the US. And recently there have been signs of fury in Pretoria over the number of South African Muslims refused entry into the US. The listing of the Dockrat cousins on a US terrorism watch list is a point of serious contention. If the climate had been better, this might have been sorted out fairly easily.

What accounts for this deterioration in relations is that SA now feels far more confident on the international stage as a temporary member of the UN Security Council. In addition, Pretoria has a messianic foreign policy with an avowal to counter the US by striving for a multipolar world.

After our first democratic elections in 1994, the signs were that the relationship between the US and SA would be warm, if not close. A binational commission was established and met regularly, but was scrapped in 2001, soon after President George Bush took office, and the relationship has continued its decline.

The US never got a piece of the multibillion-rand arms deal, a signal that SA felt far closer to Europe. However, US-made F-16s instead of Gripen fighters and more C-130s instead of the next-generation European A400M military air transporters may have been a far cheaper option.

Official visits and regular talks have been kept up but signs are that initial enthusiasm has given way to divisions and now even distrust. In December, Bush met Mbeki in Washington, followed by Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, but little was revealed about these talks, an indication that there were probably few shared positions. There has been no shouting match so far but things may be headed that way as SA’s rhetoric becomes more forceful.

Last week, Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad suggested the US had created a far more “volatile, dangerous, and unpredictable environment” in which SA had to carry out its foreign policy. He also accused the US and Israel of frustrating efforts towards peace in the Middle East.

SA would prefer that the US was not establishing an Africa Command for US forces, although a number of US generals and admirals have been visiting of late, seeking co-operation.

Much of the rest of the world also has poor relations with the US, due to the disaster in Iraq and fears over what is perceived as a gradual move to attack Iran. But it can reasonably be expected that those relations will improve when Bush goes. So with Washington’s declining influence, does it really matter if SA’s relationship with the US is less than perfect?

The answer is yes. Good relations open options and allow greater flexibility. Opposition to the US invasion of Iraq and expression of fears over a possible invasion of Iran are widespread and not threatening to our relations with Washington, since it is a song being sung worldwide.

The real sore points for Washington are issues such as SA voting with Russia and China to protect the military regime in Burma against a non-punitive, US-sponsored UN Security Council resolution. On the Iranian nuclear issue, SA talks to Iran regularly about the standoff on its uranium enrichment programme, without delivering a solution. On Zimbabwe, Bush said Mbeki was the “point man” in working towards a solution but in the nearly four years since these words were used, nothing has been delivered.

The problem for SA is that the next administration in Washington will take a similar view of these issues. The result is that SA could fast be losing influence in Washington in areas that could count, such as trade. Democrats are already asking why SA should be given free access to the US market in a range of goods when it is a middle-income country and there is no reciprocity for US goods.

Time will tell if the relationship improves in the post-Mbeki and post-Bush eras, but signs are that anti-US sentiment is well entrenched in SA. The US sees SA as one of the region’s four strategic players with Kenya, Ethiopia and Nigeria, to be consulted and wooed on many issues. But SA’s stance has become sufficiently predictable that the US may simply not view it as necessary to lobby SA. With predictability, influence is lost.

Katzenellenbogen is international affairs editor.

With acknowledgements to Jonathan Katzenellenbogen and Business Day.


*1       The F-16s instead of Gripen fighters and C-130s instead of the A400M military air transporters would have have been a far cheaper option.

The latest (1991-vintage) Block 50 F-16C has a new cost of some US$34 million each whereas the 29 Gripens are costing us an average of US$97 million each.

That's just 2,8 times higher.


We could also have acquired used, but refurbished aircraft at much lower cost.

The latest (1999-vintage) C-130J Super Hercules has a new cost of some US$60 million each whereas the eight A400Ms are costing us an average of US$270 million each.

That's just 4,5 times higher.

And we already own about a dozen recently upgraded C-130 Hercules.


Additionally, there was absolutely no reason to be buying new fighter aircraft in 1997 (for initial delivery in 2008 and final delivery in 2015).