UNDERSTANDING ESWATINI’S ‘ANGINASITSA’ FOREIGN POLICY

“One of the mistakes that the outside world makes is to think that their enemies should be our enemies.”

This infamous statement was made by the late South African (SA) Statesman Nelson Mandela during his trip to the United States (US) in June 1990, just months after being released from prison. He had been asked why he embraced Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gadhafi and Cuban President Fidel Castro (all three are now deceased) who were accused by the US of supporting or encouraging international terrorism. Mandela made it clear that ‘our attitude toward any country is determined by the attitude of that country toward our struggle’

When told by the interviewer that his responses would not be well received by other Americans, especially Jews, Mandela, after first having expressed sympathy with the struggle of the Jewish people, responded: “That does not mean that the enemies of Israel are our enemies. Anyone who changes his principles, depending on who he is dealing with, is not a man who can lead a nation.” What Mandela faced at that time and the responses he gave could best define the nature of geopolitics.  One seeks not to complicate things by going into the many meanings of what geopolitics is, but strive to be simplistic by referring to it in what the Britannica says it is – international politics. Every country’s role in the arena of international politics is determined largely, if not entirely, by its foreign policy.

Struggle

What Mandela was also alive to, was that in as much as he did not want to dump those countries that had supported the struggle against the apartheid regime, he did not have to make enemies with the US. While not making the outside world’s enemies the enemies of SA, he also did not want to make the outside world the enemies of SA. He had to play that balancing act. Even today, that is how SA approaches the international political arena.
The attitude of SA’s foreign policy, as espoused by Mandela, can be likened to that of the Kingdom of Eswatini, which can be traced back to King Sobhuza II. The same balancing act applies.

Eswatini’s behaviour in geopolitics is guided by its foreign policy, which, as stated in government documents, is rooted in the over-riding desire and commitment to non-interference in the political affairs of other nations. “It is also the belief of this nation to cultivate good neighbourliness and peaceful coexistence with other nations through the policy, ‘Anginasitsa’ (I have no enemy), a true depiction of what diplomacy is about,” reads the foreign policy statement.

Peace and security are outlined as being among the pillars of this foreign policy as they are prerequisites for sustainable development and economic longevity and prosperity, not only for the local or national environment, but also at continental and global levels. “At the core of this outlook is the policy of ‘Anginasitsa’ (I have no enemy), which is deeply rooted in the principle of good neighbourliness and peaceful co- existence for countries in the immediate neighbourhood and beyond.

This is inspired by the national spirit of emaSwati to commit to peaceful dialogue, as the first option in addressing subversive and competing interests, and to prevent the emergence of full-blown conflict,” further reads the foreign policy statement.Eswatini lists the aims of the peace pillar as follows: Promotion of peaceful dialogue at national level; promotion of peaceful dialogue at international level; promotion of early warning mechanisms; peaceful resolution of conflicts and disputes; and participation and enhancement of capacity for regional, continental and global cooperation on sustainable development.

Non-Aligned

The ‘I have no enemy’ approach to international politics can also be the reason why Eswatini is part of the 120 countries that are members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). NAM was founded in 1961 with the view of advancing interests of developing countries in the context of Cold War confrontation. In its first three decades, the movement played a crucial role in decolonisation, formation of new independent States, and democratisation of international relations.

NAM builds its work on ten Bandung principles, including: Respect for the sovereignty, equality and territorial integrity of all states; rejection of the possibility of an unconstitutional change of government, as well as external attempts to change the regime of government; the preservation of the inalienable right for each State is free, without interference from outside, to determine its political, social, economic and cultural system; refusal from aggression and direct or indirect use of force; non-application of any unilateral economic, political or military measures.

At the United Nations (UN), one of the countries that has recorded the most ‘absent vote’ when faced with the task of choosing to side with one nation over the other is Eswatini. Voting at the UN is most times determined by alliances, but because Eswatini is a non-aligned State it chooses not to participate in such balloting. Take for instance in December 2017, when there was a vote of the decision by the US to recognise Jerusalem as the Israel’s capital. When the day for voting came, Eswatini was absent.  

This, as the then minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Mgwagwa Gamedze, explained, was in line with the kingdom’s foreign policy of being a non-aligned State. “Every country has its own policies. Our policy is that all things should be resolved peacefully; that’s the foreign policy that guides us,” Gamedze said. He said the ‘absent’ vote was as pertinent as the ‘yes’ vote, therefore, Eswatini did participate in the voting process by being absent.

Resolution

He likened this to someone who was being asked his name but chose to remain silent: “That’s an answer. Even though you didn’t get the answer you were looking for but you did get an answer. The answer is that I don’t want to give you my name. In short, all the countries voted. Those that voted for the resolution were counted, so were those that voted against the resolution as well as those who abstained and those that were absent. That means we also voted. This is a clear vote that is known by the UN.”

Soon after the Jerusalem vote, Eswatini was re-admitted into the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) from which the kingdom had been removed. So, clearly, Eswatini’s foreign policy stance worked.  Finding your way through the terrain of geopolitics is, and always has been, a tricky task that requires a balancing act all the time, hence Eswatini considers no country as an enemy.

To some, this form of international diplomacy is a sign of cowardice. One country that has faced this ‘cowardice’ tag is Ireland, which has maintained a longstanding principle of neutrality in international affairs. This has prevented the country from participating in international conflicts, mostly of a military nature. This neutrality stance is, however, not provided for in the Constitution.  But there have been calls from some lawmakers to change this. Last year, there was a proposal to hold a referendum on codifying the neutrality into the Irish Constitution. However, this proposal was rejected after government parties voted against the motion.

The party People Before Profit, which proposed the initiative, described the neutrality principle as having come ‘seriously under attack’ from successive governments. Given the policy’s ‘long-standing and overwhelming’ support, many people mistakenly think the stance is already constitutionally protected, Barrett argued. For Eswatini, the ‘Anginasitsa’  mantra is somehow, not explicitly, outlined in Section 69 of the Constitution where the ‘Foreign Policy Objectives’ are outlined.This Section reads: “In its dealings with other nations, the Government shall promote and protect the interests of Swaziland; seek the establishment of a just and equitable international economic and social order; promote respect for international law, treaty obligations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; be opposed to all forms of domination, racism and other forms of oppression and exploitation.” The Section adds: “Swaziland shall actively participate in international and regional organisations that stand for peace and for the well-being and progress of humanity.”

Objectives

These objectives speak to neutrality in the sense that Eswatini shall engage with every country in a manner that promotes peace. The UN defines neutrality as the legal status arising from the abstention of a State from all participation in a war between other States, the maintenance of an attitude of impartiality toward the belligerents, and the recognition by the belligerents of this abstention and impartiality.

This explains Eswatini’s ‘Anginasitsa’ mantra. The UN says neutrality is critically important for the UN to gain and maintain the confidence and cooperation of all in order to operate independently and effectively, especially in situations that are politically charged. Eswatini’s foreign policy approach, therefore, aligns with the manner the UN functions. Resolution 71/275 of the UN underlined that some States’ national policies of neutrality can contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security and play an important role in developing mutually beneficial relations among countries of the world.

The UN recognises that such national policies of neutrality are aimed at promoting the use of preventive diplomacy, which is a core function of the UN and occupies a central place among the functions of the secretary-general. As a result the UN General Assembly decided to declare December 12 the International Day of Neutrality, and called for marking the day by holding events aimed at enhancing public awareness of the value of neutrality in international relations. “Anginasitsa (I have no enemy)”, says Eswatini.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: