Imraan Buccus. File Picture: Independent Newspapers
The geopolitical climate has been tense in recent years, largely due to the rise of China as a major economic power and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The recent election of Donald Trump can only inflame the situation.
In these choppy waters South African civil society faces a critical question: Should our civil society remain genuinely non-aligned, or will we allow ourselves to be drawn into escalating global tensions?
As the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) prepares to hold a conference in Johannesburg under the banner of “democracy” from 20 to 22 November this question has become pressing.
Since the end of apartheid South Africa’s foreign policy has leaned towards non-alignment. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was born out of a shared commitment to autonomy among states in the Global South and South Africa has remained loyal to non-alignment as a principle.
Yet, today, non-alignment faces new threats as various foreign powers seek influence in Africa through soft power, financial support, and, as in this case, “democracy” initiatives.
The NED is far from an innocuous NGO. While it frames itself as promoting democracy, the reality is more complicated. Established in 1983 under the Reagan administration, the NED has functioned as an instrument of US foreign policy, stepping in where the CIA left off in meddling in the political landscapes of other nations.
The organisation operates through grants to civil society organisations, opposition groups, and media outlets, especially in countries where governments challenge Western interests.
In Bolivia, for instance, the NED funded opposition groups that opposed former President Evo Morales.
Morales, an Indigenous leader and vocal advocate for Bolivian sovereignty, implemented policies that redirected the nation’s natural resources toward domestic needs, defying multinational corporations that had previously dominated the landscape.
His administration’s policies on lithium—a strategic resource for tech industries—put Bolivia on a collision course with the US.
Under pressure and with backing from right-wing factions aligned with US interests, Morales was ousted, despite winning his election.
His removal, framed by his detractors as a necessity for democracy, turned out to be a blatant example of foreign interference aimed at serving the interests of outside powers.
In Haiti, another painful example, the NED funded opposition groups against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Aristide’s leadership, rooted in social justice and economic independence, made him a champion of the poor but an adversary to the Haitian elite and US interests.
Aristide’s opposition to neo-liberal policies and his demand for reparations for slavery from France set him at odds with powerful stakeholders.
By supporting anti-Aristide factions, the NED contributed to a coup that forced him out and sent Haiti spiralling further into poverty and political instability.
This so-called “democracy support” led to a deepened crisis for the very people the NED claimed to support.
In Venezuela the NED supported opposition groups challenging Hugo Chávez, who sought to control Venezuela’s oil resources and reject foreign dominance.
While the NED framed its actions as support for Venezuelan democracy, it effectively weakened the nation’s sovereignty and fuelled unrest in pursuit of regime change—a regime change that would favour US access to Venezuela’s oil reserves.
Nicaragua provides yet another example of the NED’s influence in destabilising governments that do not align with US interests. For years, the NED has provided funding to opposition groups in Nicaragua, particularly under the leadership of Daniel Ortega.
Ortega’s Sandinista government, originally supported by a popular movement, pursued policies aimed at redistributing wealth, challenging foreign control of Nicaraguan resources, and maintaining an independent stance in foreign policy.
In response, the NED financed groups that opposed Ortega, including those involved in protests that escalated into violent confrontations in 2018.
The opposition, though portrayed as pro-democracy, sought to bring down the government through means that undermined Nicaragua’s sovereignty and stability.
These are just a few of the many examples that illustrate a troubling pattern. In each case, the NED has cloaked its intentions in the language of democracy and freedom while supporting the destabilisation of elected governments that resist Western hegemony.
It is no wonder, then, that the NED’s upcoming conference in Johannesburg has raised concerns among organisations committed to non-alignment and autonomy.
Two of the hosts of the conference, the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA) and the Ronnie Mamoepa Foundation, have pulled out in the face of growing opposition.
The South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) has demanded that two other host organisations, the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation and Defend our Democracy, do the same.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) has also come out strongly against the conference, as have pro-Palestine organisations, including Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS).
There is also deep opposition to the conference among the wider left, including the ANC aligned left and the independent left.
Ronnie Kasrils was the first major public figure to come out against the conference but left Whatsapp groups have been ablaze across the usual sectarian divisions.
Unfortunately there is now bitter division between the trade union movement and the NGOs that have not withdrawn from the conference. There is a similarly bitter division against the key personalities involved in the conference, such as Mark Heywood and Rekgotsofetse Chikane.
Heywood was a leading figure in the Treatment Action Campaign which was strongly supported by the trade union movement and this breakdown can only weaken civil society.
Heywood will find the doors to the trade union and social movement offices firmly closed to any future entreaties.
Moreover this conference can only inflame the tendency among the more paranoid elements in the ANC to assume that civil society critique and activism is driven by Western imperialism even in cases where it is plainly not.
This conference will fuel that paranoia making it more difficult for civil society and government to engage in good faith.
South Africa must and should engage with the international community. No country exists in a vacuum, and our economy and people require robust international relationships.
But there is a critical difference between building civil society partnerships that respect our autonomy and falling under the sway of foreign agendas that undermine it.
A truly non-aligned foreign policy means refusing to be co-opted into the agendas of all the global superpowers, whether the US, China, or Russia and civil society should also remain independent.
South African civil society should be loyal to the South African people and should refuse all attempts to be captured by foreign powers.
Collaborating with the US government organisation that has been involved in a long list of coups and other regime change operations against democratically elected governments is a very serious error of judgment.
This conference has already done serious damage to the unity and credibility of South African civil society and the organisations that have not yet withdrawn need to urgently reconsider their position.
* Dr Buccus is a political analyst
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL Opinion