Abstract
This research paper examines whether the South African government (SAG) has engaged in transactional diplomacy and deviated from its stated human rights-oriented foreign policy in controversial cases that include its former allies. South Africa has stated that its foreign policy is guided by the protection and promotion of human rights, democracy, and international law, as well as multilateralism. However, South Africa has been criticised for not adhering to its foreign policy pillars, defending states with questionable human rights records, and befriending countries that don’t share the same values. It is accused of using multilateral organisations to defend those states and criticising any sanctions or actions meant to hold those particular states accountable. This dissertation therefore also investigates whether South Africa’s struggle history and politics, particularly those of the African National Congress (ANC), being the governing party, influence how South Africa behaves in multilateral organisations when responding to crises that affect its former allies. Another major critique that the SAG is continually confronted with, is that it flip-flops on critical issues. Hence, one of the objectives of this research paper is to ascertain whether South Africa is consistent or inconsistent with its voting behaviour and positions in multilateral organisations such as the African Union (AU), United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), and United Nations Security Council (UNSC). This dissertation found that the SAG has practised transactional diplomacy in the two identified cases, Zimbabwe and Libya. In the case of Zimbabwe, the SAG was consistent in its positions and voting; however, in the Libya crisis, the SAG was quite inconsistent, with continuous backtracking from its official positions.
KEY WORDS: Transactional diplomacy, South African foreign policy, Human rights, Zimbabwe, Libya, diplomacy, United Nations, Human Rights Council, Security Council, African Union.