Are we seeing the emergence of a new 'Zuma doctrine' on Africa?
In a radical shift, the South African government’s policy on Africa is one of increasing involvement and a much greater willingness to risk lives for the ideals of defending democracy and ending conflict.
South Africa would ‘never say no’ when called upon to end strife in Africa, International Relations and Cooperation Minister MaiteNkoana-Mashabane told journalists in Pretoria on 29 April.Asked if recent military interventions or planned interventions indicated that South Africa would become increasingly involved in efforts to bring peace to the continent, she said that South Africa was an integral part of Africa and believed that there could only be a better South Africa in a continent that was secure and democratic and that respected international law: ‘So yes, preventative diplomacy, intervening when there are situations of strife, when we are called upon to do that, we will always be there, we will never say no’.
This was the most unequivocal statement so far about what seems to be a quite radical shift in the South African government’s policy on Africa. It was the evident culmination of a new ‘Zuma doctrine’, if you will, which Nkoana-Mashabane in particular has rapidly been unveiling over the last few weeks.She had been asked at an earlier media briefing on 4 April why South Africa had kept its troops in Central African Republic (CAR) even after the Seleka rebels insisted they would not honour their commitments in the January 2013 Libreville power-sharing and peace deal with then-President Francois Bozize unless foreign troops – specifically the SA National Defence Force (SANDF) contingent – left the country.Nkoana-Mashabane responded forcefully to the question, vowing that ‘South Africa will never shy away from defending democracy … in our continent’.
The minister revealed that President Jacob Zuma had told the African Union (AU) summit in Addis Ababa in January this year ‘that this new phenomenon where you have mutineers, referred to as rebels, [who] then go and negotiate power with a legitimately-elected government, should be stopped … Because this is just another way of bringing about unconstitutional changes of government on our continent which should never be tolerated’.
If there is a new Zuma doctrine, at least three examples of operations that might exemplify it come to mind.As noted above, Nkoana-Mashabane implicitly presented her government’s decision to keep troops in CAR in January – which led to their fatal clash with Seleka rebels on 23 March – as an expression of a broader mission on the continent, what might be tantamount to a new doctrine.
The second example of an unfolding new doctrine seems to have been Zuma’s decision to contribute a battalion of South African troops to the Neutral Intervention Force, also known as the SADC Brigade, which has been tasked by the UN to go into the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to disarm and neutralise armed rebel groups – especially the M23.It seems that the South African contingent, probably about 850-strong, will be transferred from MONUSCO – the regular UN peacekeeping force in DRC.But the SADC Brigade, with its mandate to take on the rebels actively, will have a much more robust and dangerousmission than the rest of MONUSCO.
If Zuma decides to send SANDF troops back to CAR, as part of a stronger peacekeeping force of the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) tasked with ending the anarchy prevailing in CAR since Seleka took over the country on 24 March, this would represent the third operation in execution of the new Zumadoctrine. It was in reply to questions about this possible operation that Nkoana-Mashabane vowed that South Africa would ‘never say no’ when asked to help end ‘strife’ in Africa.Zuma said last week that he had been asked ‘verbally’ to contribute troops to the ECCAS force and that the government would consider the request if it was formally submitted by ECCAS. The request was expected to be put to Zuma at the 3 May meeting in Brazzaville of the International Contact Group on CAR which he was to attend.
The South African government might well dismiss talk of a new doctrine as melodramatic, arguing that it has always been committed to peace and democracy in Africa – citing the country’s contributions to peacekeeping missions in the DRC, Burundi and Darfur, for example.The difference now, though, seems to be a much greater willingness to risk lives for these ideals.
Of course many critics would, conversely, scoff at the characterisation of the battle of Bangui as a coherent expression of a new doctrine on Africa.They would say that government has been inconsistent in explaining why it sent South African troops into CAR, especially the reinforcements deployed in January this year.Zuma has answered the question narrowly, saying they were there simply in fulfillment of an agreement with the CAR government of President Francois Bozize – now ousted – to provide training to its military. But NkoanaMashabane and her officials have characterised the mission more broadly, as part of a wider effort to stop coups and mutinies and restore security, democracy and respect for international law.
Such inconsistencies have provoked suspicions that the troops might have been in CAR for the far less noble purpose of protecting commercial interests, either national or even familial.These suspicions have been voiced again now that Zuma is contemplating sending troops back to CAR.Other sceptics wonder, a little more charitably, if this is not a move by Zumato ‘save face’after South African troops failed to prevent Seleka seizing power.
The motivation for the eastern DRC mission seems more legitimate, although not entirely without the suspicion too of protecting national or family commercial interests.But even if we take Nkoana-Mashabane at face value and assume the nobler motive, some important questions remain. Not least is whether South Africa has the military means to pursue such an ambitious policy.And, more broadly, is South Africa really becoming more assertive in order to bring stability and democracy to Africa –or to thwart the ‘meddling’ of France and other Western powers on the continent?
That seemed to the primary motive for campaigning so aggressively to get NkosazanaDlamini-Zuma into the chair of the AU Commission last year.Zuma wanted to replace the incumbent, Gabon’s Jean Ping, whom he evidently regarded as a puppet of France, with a former ‘liberation fighter’ who would guard Africa’s independence.Is the new doctrine of deploying South African troops into African trouble spots similarly motivated by an imperative to pre-empt the likes of France? Was it perhaps France’s life-saving intervention in Mali that inspired Zuma’s new approach?Was Zuma’s thinking, as officials suggest, in abandoning the Mandela/Mbeki doctrine of avoiding playing Big Brother in Africa, that ‘if we don’t play Big Brother, someone else will’? If the Zuma doctrine, as Nkoana-Mashabane insists, was motivated purely by the wish to see a peaceful and democratic Africa, it should not matter if French troops or African troops liberated northern Mali from jihadists.
Peter Fabricius, Foreign Editor, Independent Newspapers
