Pax South Africana and the Responsibility to Protect

Abstract

This essay examines the leading role adopted by the South African governments of Nelson Mandela, abo Mbeki, and Jacob Zuma to promote R2P between 1994 and 2010. In response to the sociopolitical oppression and devastation wrought by apartheid between 1948 and 1990, South African governments since 1994 have played an activist role in developing new norms in international affairs. Describing the South African posture on R2P as one of engagement and 'quiet diplomacy', the essay notes that the country has pushed for multilateral institutions to become the major repositories of the R2P norm. Within Africa, South Africa was instrumental in negotiating the continent's shift of position on the R2P norm from one of 'non-intervention' to one of 'non-indifference'. South Africa has also sought to implement R2P through political processes and negotiations rather than through sanctions and the use of force—an engagist stance that the country adopted during its controversial two years on the UN Security Council (2007–2008), contrary to the tougher approach recommended by powerful Western members of the Security Council. Emphasis is placed on the capacity constraints with which South Africa continues to struggle, as it seeks to operationalise its position on R2P.

Afro-Continentalism: Pan-Africanism in Post-Settlement South Africa’s Foreign Policy

“…It strongly believes and advocates that military action can only to be taken under a multi-lateral umbrella, and only in very select instances, namely to engage in 'responsibility to protect missions', justified in instances of gross violations of human rights, genocide, instability in African states, which threatens broader regional stability, and unconstutional changes of government (Landsberg, 2010).…”

South Africa and the Responsibility to Protect: from champion to sceptic

“…9 The country was instrumental in the inclusion of a number of articles in the AU's Constitutive Act, including Article 4(h) that refers to 'the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity'. 10 This was in stark contrast to its forerunner, the OAU's emphasis on non-interference and respect for sovereignty. Relatedly, South Africa was also pivotal in developing the AU's peace and security architecture, including the Peace and Security Council, which would bear primary responsibility for implementing the continent's version of R2P.…”

Procedural justice and global order: Explaining African reaction to the application of global protection norms

“…South Africa is a case in point. As previously mentioned, South Africa was one of the most instrumental norm entrepreneurs and played a pivotal role in anchoring R2P in the AU’s Constitutive Act (Landsberg, 2010: 441). Yet, in line with its concept of Pax South Africana , Pretoria preferred a strategy of engagement, quiet diplomacy, and compromise.…”

“…Yet, in line with its concept of Pax South Africana , Pretoria preferred a strategy of engagement, quiet diplomacy, and compromise. It also viewed “military intervention as being at the far side of a spectrum of coercive measures … to be taken only after other instruments had been exhausted” (Landsberg, 2010: 446; see also Mabera and Dunne, 2013; Verhoeven et al, 2014). Critics in South Africa have denounced this approach for fostering regime security instead of human security (Aboagye, 2012).…”