Sherwyn Sean Cupido-Weaich explores how South Africa’s constitutional principles shape its foreign policy decisions and the challenges it faces in communicating these values to the international community. This article forms Part II of aseriesexamining why South Africa’s constitutional order is frequently misread by the United States and its allies. It responds to renewed criticism during Donald Trump’s presidency and recent diplomatic signals, including South Africa’s exclusion from a US-hosted G20 engagement, by situating South Africa’s foreign-policy choices within constitutional and international legal frameworks.
South Africa is often described as a country that sits on the fence. When it refuses automatic alignment with powerful states, the criticism is familiar: indecision, moral ambiguity, quiet hostility. That accusation sharpened after South Africa condemned United States action in Venezuela and called for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council.
In Washington, this was widely interpreted as an unfriendly act. This article is not a defence of outcomes, but an analysis of constitutional method. What is often described as neutrality is, in reality, constitutional non-alignment.
[paywall]
Yet South Africa has failed to explain this clearly, consistently, and persuasively. South Africa’s Constitution does not permit foreign policy to operate outside law. External relations are expected to reflect the same values that govern domestic power: dignity, accountability, and restraint. This was a deliberate post-apartheid choice, grounded in the recognition that unchecked power had caused harm both internally and externally.
[/paywall]
