anddreajoyy-blog

[anddreajoyy-blog]

Being brought up in a capitalist world, most of us only look at the good which comes from it – like Iphones and Microsoft word. But not many people – besides chatting about it around family suppers and writing about it in school essays – stop to critique the mass production, along with the economic development it is bringing to China, and how it is affecting the people who dedicate their lives to a process from which they benefit so little.

Being an international relations student, one of the topics we focused on during the first semester was China’s mode of development in contrast to the Western liberal mode of economic development which is being endorsed worldwide through Structural Adjustment Programmes and neo-liberal policies implemented through institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Briefly, the “West” developed economically with the help of imperialism and colonialism. As we know, lots of areas were occupied by settlers and exploited economically of its natural resources and natives as a source of cheap labour. In addition to this, the West’s military power was and is used to impose the implementation of neo-liberal policies worldwide – which forces the entire world to subscribe to neo-liberal capitalism, a system which was established to be solely beneficial to the West – while the West also benefits from being a source of financial aid to economically weaker countries by having access to the return on these ‘investments’ in the form of insane interest rates.

How the Chinese developed so much economically did not come at the cost of cheap labour from foreigners during colonialism, but at the expense of a chunk of the Chinese population. China mass produces a wide variety of products, in a very short time, and sells it at prices which many other countries cannot compete with. As we all see, this has resulted in China becoming a giant monetary influence in the global capitalist world today – which is obviously beneficial for the country. However, looking at a Chinese Apple supplier factory as a point of reference, Chinese workers are underpaid and severely overworked. In a report conducted by the Chinese Labour Watch, it was found that workers are sometimes even scolded for asking for restrooms breaks and forced to sign falsified time cards after working 66 hour weeks which are signed as (and only legally meant to be) 49 hours long.

What I am basically trying to say is that for countries like South Africa, and the continent of Africa as a whole, which are battling to “develop” economically to the level of the US or China, the Western and even Chinese mode of development will not be foolproof. Both come with flaws and unfortunately, the nature of capitalism generally produces winners and losers – not just winners (economically, that is). For Africa’s economic development specifically, an “African solution” should be found.

[anddreajoyy-blog]

I do model as well, so my photos will occasionally feature here too.

[anddreajoyy-blog]

Human rights are for all humans.

“Are LGBTI rights human rights?” This was a question asked at the United Nations in June 2012. Being part of the LGBT community, one would get outraged that such a question deserves an answer in the first place, because being gay or lesbian does not make you any less human. Unfortunately, the rest of the heterosexual South African community does not seem to regard this as the case. This was seen at the 32nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) when South Africa abstained, voted against and officially opposed three resolutions aimed at protecting and promoting the human rights of the LGBT community. This voting trend that illustrates South Africa’s foreign policy is the complete opposite of our domestic policy which originally made us one of the first countries to enshrine equal rights -irrespective of sexual orientation- within our Constitution. What could possibly account for such a shift? The assignment below aims to answer that question with reference to the individual and national level of foreign policy analysis along with examples of each.

As a starting point, it is necessary to properly define this concept that seems to continually be on everyone’s lips – human rights. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, human rights can be defined as “basic rights ... that belong to every person in the world, from birth until death. They apply regardless of how ... you choose to live your life and cannot be taken away”. (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2016) Other definitions have been formulated by different scholars of human rights as well. For natural scholars, “human beings have human rights that are realised through individual enjoyment” (Dembour, 2010:7). Protest scholars of human rights “also accept that human beings have human rights” (Dembour, 2010:8). One would think that this logic of humans being entitled to human rights would resonate with the rest of “logical” South Africa and the world, but this does not seem to be the case. The ultimate source of human rights should be the “individual, rather than culture, society, institutions, or obligations.” (Goodale, 2006:493) Defining human rights is important because the only time the rights of the LGBTI community should not be recognized, is the moment they are no longer human. With reference to recent events like the Orlando shooting in Florida and the police raiding and brutality at LGBTI Pride in Uganda, LGBTI people are humans who just have a different sexual orientation in relation to the norm, yet are being treated inhumanely as a result. Two theories within International Relations that consider human rights to be an important theme of international relations are the English School and Liberalism. The English School has “a strong tradition of concern regarding rights ... which stems from their worldview that mass human rights violations within states are (or should be) an international concern”. (Gallagher 2013) Since human rights, and the mass violations thereof, “impact the ordering principles of the international society”, the English School advocates it as an important theme of International Relations. (Gallagher 2013) The second theory, Liberalism, on which the English School is based, also states that the universal protection of human beings ought to be a concern.

Because Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) focuses on the source of decisions made regarding foreign policy, the levels of analysis in FPA will be used to explain the shift from human rights in South Africa’s foreign policy. The units of analysis which seem to explain the lack of regard of LGBTI human rights are the individual and state level. In South Africa, under Nelson Mandela’s Administration, human rights were the core concern of domestic and international relations. This fact is also visible in our Constitution which was drawn up during his Presidency. The Constitution of South Africa in Chapter 1, section 9, 11 and others, place such a big emphasis on human rights, most of which are being disregarded under our present government. The national level of analysis will also be used to account for this shift of focus from human rights because during Nelson Mandela’s Presidency, concepts like reconciliation, non-discrimination and equality were promoted and constitutionally entrenched. The entire government during that time fostered these principles, but today that is no longer the case.

Human agency when analysing South Africa’s foreign policy is crucial because the role of decision makers as well as the nature of the foreign policy choices that they make is the reason for the discrimination of the LGBTI community. Because “the psychological disposition, [and] the inclination to opt for second-rate policies ... all contribute to imperfect foreign policy outcomes”, it is only logical that they be used to account for South Africa’s shift in foreign policy (Alden & Amnon 2012:5). The “image held by decision makers (worldviews, perceptions and stereotypes) play the most important role in shaping foreign policy decisions” (Alden & Amnon 2012:5). The formulation of foreign policy “organizes the determinants of action” and as such, the decision makers or “officials who act for the political society” are and should be the fundamental level of FPA (Snyder et al., 1954:53). Decision makers are “subjective and foreign policy is the product of mutually constitutive processes involving individuals, societies and the construction of the ‘other’ (in this case, the LGBTI community)” – all these factors do influence the way foreign policy is formulated in South Africa (Alden & Amnon 2012:6).

The national attributes of South Africa can also be used to account for the shift in foreign policy as “focusing on just individual decision makers is excessively narrow” (Alden & Amnon 2012:6) – there are also “domestic, societal sources of foreign policy” (Alden & Amnon 2012:7). This “domestic structure approach deals with how the material attributes of a country affects foreign policy”, as structure and agency work together to affect decision-making (Alden & Amnon 2012:7). This level of analysis indicates that domestic priorities influence foreign policy, which is the case in South Africa. This is because out of 55 states in Africa, homosexuality is outlawed in 34 of them (Dlamini 2006:131), which affects South Africa’s stance with regards to the rights of the LGBTI community because the rest of the continent disregards their rights. This stance is a reflection of the pressure from Africa (an exogenous variable of foreign policy formulation) for South Africa to be in solidarity with them, which is a domestic priority. A material attribute of the country which affects foreign policy is the size of the heterosexual community in contrast with the size of the LGBTI community. A domestic structure that affects foreign policy is also the national legislature of South Africa. Because the legislature represents the majority, and the majority of South Africa is heterosexual, the foreign policy of South Africa will inherently reflect the views of a heterosexual community, without taking into account the small LGBTI community. All these factors are the reasons why the national level of analysis can account for South Africa’s shift in foreign policy.

To illustrate that the individual and national levels of FPA can account for the sudden shift in South Africa’s foreign policy, we can refer to President Jacob Zuma’s view of “unqingili” (homosexuals). This is necessary because according to Hermann (2006), “those making policy are “[...] presidents, standing committees, legislatures [and more]”. Under the transformative Presidency of Nelson Mandela, “LGBTI issues were identified as an integral part of the civil rights movement”. (Gallagher 2013) This notion of equality which he lived and worked for became a part of him as an individual which spread to the other decision-makers working with him and as such, influenced South Africa’s foreign policy. Nelson Mandela’s views regarding the LGBTI community is the reason South Africa was one of the first counties to ban antigay discrimination. He supported marriage equality and even appointed members of the LGBTI community in high positions under his administration. This contrasts with today’s individual decision makers like Mmusi Maimane and Jacob Zuma that refer to homosexuality as something to be “cured” and condemning same-sex marriages “as a disgrace to the nation and to God” (Seale 2006). President Jacob Zuma’s psychological disposition to disregard the LGBTI community stems from his traditional upbringing where homosexuality completely goes against the grain of being “a man”. Being raised in an inherently patriarchal society, same-sex marriages to him are “a taboo that should not be tolerated in any normal society” (Seale 2006). Because other policy makers have clearly backed almost everything Zuma says, this attitude of disregard is visible in the way South Africa voted in the 32nd session of the UNHRC, as the views of these individual decision makers led to this result. The inclination to opt for second-rate policy options is also a good and accurate reason for South Africa’s stance because looking at the most recent decisions of South Africa’s present government, formulating good policies are not their forte. This is illustrated in the Al-Bashir saga of 2015, South Africa’s position on Zimbabwe and Myanmar and even the Marikana Massacre of 2012. The protection of domestic and international human rights no longer seems to be a priority on South Africa’s foreign policy agenda.

To illustrate how the national level of FPA can be used to account for the incongruity of South Africa’s domestic and foreign policy, we can look at domestic, societal sources of foreign policy. One possible factor could be that a large majority of the South African population subscribes to Christianity and Islam, two major religions that regard homosexuality as a “sin” and their large numbers versus the minute 10% of the population that forms the LGBTI community has affected South Africa’s stance with regards to the rights of the LGBTI community. Another domestic factor is the heavily patriarchal society that South Africa is and has always been. Such a society has very defined gender roles and as such, inherently discriminates against anyone that does not conform to their gendered norm. Another illustration is the fact that homosexuality in schools is “still a silent taboo” (Davis 2015). Students are mechanically socialised into gendered roles that have to be attracted to the opposite sex, or face bullying and victimisation.  Another example and illustration of why domestic issues affect foreign policy according to the national level of FPA is the fact that a study conducted by OUT, an organization aimed at servicing the LGBTI community, found that the South African community is becoming increasingly homophobic “as it is believed that 14% of Gauteng residents support violence against gays and lesbians [...] ” (OUT 2016). Another discovery is that “only 56% of respondents felt that gays and lesbians deserve equal rights [...] a drop from 71% in 2013” (OUT 2016). These results along with the shocking truth that racism on social media is violently tackled but hate speech against LGBTI people is blatantly ignored. This is not the equality envisioned in the Constitution. Such a homophobic atmosphere in South African communities has resulted in a homophobic foreign policy, as we saw at the 32nd UNHRC session.

How foreign policy analysts have reacted to this clear shift away from the protection of human rights is to approach the South African Human Rights Commission, joined by various civil society organizations. Individuals and groups within the international circle are concerned by South Africa’s abstention on gay rights (News24 2016). What the SAHRC has to say is that South Africa’s commitment to the protection of human rights in its foreign policy is clearly waning. The Commission also stated that the South African government needs assistance with ensuring that its international relations policy reflects the highest ideals of the Constitution (News24 2016). South Africa’s voting against this as well as ending its participation in the International Criminal Court has the international community worried about the protection of human rights in South Africa. In a recent study done by Ross Anthony, Paul Tembe and Olivia Gull, it was found that the reason for South Africa’s shift from human rights is due to South Africa wanting to “facilitate more improved economic interactions with new actors” (Anthony, Tembe & Gull 2015). This shift, however, has been a long time coming as “South Africa’s voting record at the UNHRC, statements made by administration, moves made against the International Criminal Court’s rulings and accusations of being beholden by China” indicate that this shift began as early as during Thabo Mbeki’s administration (Anthony, Tembe & Gull 2015). Critics also relate this shift to “the emerging powers that now exert considerable influence on South African foreign policy, especially China (Anthony, Tembe & Gull 2015). It has also been stated that “during the Mbeki period, African solidarity was most especially promoted” which has and is “putting strain on South Africa’s relations with many in the Euro American world as South Africa has been perceived to choose ‘African solidarity’ over principles of democracy and human rights” (Anthony, Tembe & Gull 2015). Foreign policy analysts, both local and international are still trying to account for this shift, but the overall attitude toward it is of a negative nature.

With reference to the above, as well as South Africa’s stance regarding the three Resolutions aimed at recognizing and protecting the human rights of the LGBTI community, it is clear that South Africa is undergoing quite a radical shift from human rights promoted under the Mandela administration and entrenched in our domestic Constitution to a place where ‘African solidarity’ and religion is used to mask homophobia in the country. Evidently, South Africa’s solidarity with the largely homophobic Africa is more important than South Africa’s ‘strong’ constitutional commitment to protect gay rights (Institute for Security Studies 2014). The voting pattern of South Africa as well as certain domestic issues and individual decision makers is what has contributed to South Africa’s present foreign policy.