South Africa's national interest and BRICS

Policy Brief No. 4 Page 7February 2012the past few years following its historical links withdeveloping nations in the Non-Aligned Movement(NAM), the G20, the G77, BRICS and – moreimportantly – within IBSA.4.1.3 BrazilThe Brazilian foreign policy has been anchored ontwo concepts, namely universalism and autonomy.Universalism is linked to the country’s position inthe region, with its diversity and cultural attributesserving as a springboard for parachuting itsnational and regional interests to the rest of theworld. Autonomy relates to Brazil’s ability to engagethe international policy terrain in ways that projectits national and regional interests and those of thedeveloping world. Brazil’s role in the G20 has beenexceptional and “propelled the country to the WTO’sdecision-making core, together with India” (Vigevani &Ramanzini, 2010).The former Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim,has acknowledged Brazil’s soft balancing in theinternational terrain as follows: “I would say withoutmodesty that Brazil changed the dynamic of WTOnegotiations. Not Brazil by itself. But Brazil leadsthe G20 and is sought – almost courted. I wouldsay – by the United States, the European Union andJapan, among other countries” (quoted in Vigevani &Ramanzini, 2010).Brazil’s articulation of its role in the internationalpolicy arena – in BRICS, IBSA, the WTO and theG20 – is underpinned by its commitment to regionalintegration in South America and as leader ofMercosur, the Common Market of the South.In relation to the balance of power in the internationalsystem, Brazil’s position is described thus: “Althoughthe United States remains the only superpower in theinternational system, today one can no longer say thatthe world order can be fi tted into a strictly ‘unipolar’model. The political and military resources that theUnited States government and society have at theirdisposal, though virtually unmatchable, do not ensuretheir capacity to defi ne outcomes on a global scale”(Vigevani & Ramanzini, 2010).4.1.4 RussiaThe assumed relative decline of the United States inthe international system has given rise to a significantbody of literature that recasts the positive role ofRussia in the world since the collapse of the SovietUnion almost two decades ago. Hopes are thatRussia’s relationship with China, Brazil, India andSouth Africa will place it at an advantage in relationto the United States. Furthermore, the impendingentry of Russia into the WTO will place the countryprominently in the arena of international economicactivity.Russia’s strategic role in BRICS is to deal with itscontinuing irritation with the United States’ allegedarrogance and disregard for international law,norms and obligations. Rather than seeing itselfas a “responsible stakeholder” in an internationaleconomic system underwritten by the United States,“Russia want[s] the United States to be a responsiblenormal great power in concert with other elite few”(Kuchins & Weitz, 2008).Russia is the only member of BRICS that has raisedsome of the critical intra-BRICS challenges andmistrusts among its fi ve member countries. Russia’sforeign policy posture in BRICS is to balance China’srise and assertiveness. A secret Russian documentis quoted as follows (Skak, 2011):“...special attention must be directed towardsmonitoring the growing role of China in internationalaffairs, including having in mind the consequencesof Beijing’s activities for our regional and globalinterest. We must proceed from the fundamentalimportance of keeping China on a position of actingjointly with us – taking into account the situationaldynamics – within the G20, BRICS, and SecurityCouncil of the UN (in which our support is often ofgreater signifi cance for Chinese than their supportis for us nowadays).”4.1.5 South AfricaSouth Africa’s role and position in the internationalarena have to a large degree derived their legitimacyfrom the democratic and egalitarian values that ledto the collapse of apartheid seventeen years ago.The transition from apartheid to becoming a fullmember of the international community wrought alitany of challenges. On the one hand, there wereexpectations that South Africa was to become abeacon of hope; on the other hand, strategic lapsesaway from its founding values of human rights anddemocracy have led many to believe that the countryhas lost its moral high ground (Baker & Lyman, 2008).Development Planning Division