University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
One of the salient features of the second half of the twentieth century has been the ascendance
of socio-economic issues in international relations. Through these issues states rewarded their
allies (in the form of preferential access to their markets, most-favoured nation status, easy
credit loans, and so forth) and 'punished' their enemies (through excessive tariff and non-tariff
barriers). Prior to, but especially after WW II, the globe was divided into two hostile
economic systems, namely, the capitalist bloc and the socialist bloc, led respectively by the
US and the former Soviet Union. States from both camps had to ensure a free flow of
essential raw materials and goods required for the military industrial complex. High on the
priority list were strategic resources such as oil, plutonium, uranium and gold. The attempts
to keep the supply lines open created tensions. These socio-economic tensions induced by the
imperative of maintaining large military industries, persisted until the late 1980s during the
demise of the former Soviet Union.
Consequently, the focus changed from ensuring
economic growth with a view to financing massive defence spending, to that of increasing
social spending. However, the protection of links and routes for transporting essential goods
and services remain crucial for all countries, given the threat posed by rogue states, and pirate
and terrorist groups.1
Regional co-operation and/or integration defy a single definition, but both concepts are
characterised by the desire to improve the welfare of parties by eradicating all or most forms
of restrictions on interaction and co-operation. Conceptually there is a fundamental, but
increasingly blurred, difference between integration and co-operation between states.
Generally, it is assumed that the natural progression process, especially among contiguous
states, is that co-operation should lead to integration. But this is not necessarily always the
case. According to Barber,2 co-operation refers to an “agreement between governments to act
jointly for specific ends, and usually does not involve the creation of a regional structure or
Unlike co-operation, integration involves the transfer of elements of
sovereignty to a regional organisation. As a general rule, closer economic co-operation
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
engenders mutual economic development, thus bringing about increased income and
efficiency, improved political stability in the region and strengthens the bargaining power of
members in multilateral forums. Throughout this discussion, 'economic integration' will be
seen as referring to "the process of reducing or eliminating the economic significance of
national boundaries within a geographic area, namely, the treatment of hitherto separate
economic units as a single economic area."3 It should be noted that economic integration is
normally facilitated by many factors, including political, military and strategic considerations.
For instance, the European Union idea originated from those unique historical, geopolitical
and economic circumstances of Western Europe. Similarly, NAFTA, comprising the US,
Canada and Mexico, has implications and arrangements that go way beyond strictly economic
issues. Through NAFTA, member states are able to deal with security threats such as drugtrafficking, illegal immigration and the environment.4
Relations between South Africa and the countries of the Mercosur group fall largely in the
realm of co-operation in socio-economic matters with a view to improving the living
standards of their citizenry. This chapter discusses co-operation within the context of South
Africa's relations with the Mercosur group, state-to-state interaction (namely, South Africa's
relations with individual countries) and, lastly, it analyses the potential impact of such
relations on the Southern African sub-region or the SADC of which South Africa is a
member. The common thread running through the analysis is based on the expanded notion
of economic security as discussed in Chapter 1. However, the emphasis is on socio-economic
relations and the potential impact this may have on security.
Since the establishment of Mercosur and the advent of democracy in South Africa there have
been increased efforts to cement ties across the South Atlantic region. Unlike in the past
where the most glaring feature of international affairs was East-West confrontation, the
rallying point in the post-Cold War scenario was the promotion of South-South co-operation.
The economic polarisation of the globe into 'First' World (the rich industrialised countries of
the North), 'Second' World (the state socialism of Central and Eastern Europe) and 'Third'
World (the poor, developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America) became
inappropriate when the 'Second' World collapsed. Consequently, the North-South divide
became the new main fault-line characterising international affairs.
It was against this
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
background that post-apartheid South Africa, like many other countries in the region, sought
to strengthen economic, political and other forms of co-operation within the context of SouthSouth relations.
Historically, co-operation among the countries of the South has not been particularly good.
The watershed in South-South relations, according to the Jorge Heine, the former Chilean
Ambassador to South Africa up to 1995, was the 1973 oil shock, and the “New International
Economic Order” (NIEO) became the buzzword.5 Rich countries of the North realised the
magnitude of potential disruption that collective action by some Third World oil-producing
countries could have on their global industrial output. The seriousness with which NorthSouth issues were taken, in the aftermath of the oil shock, in international forums dwindled to
negligible levels by the late 1980s.
Despite the relative loss of strategic value of the
developing countries following the demise of the former Soviet Union, there were already
indications that some of that lost value could be recovered in the socio-economic realm. By
1995 the US had already identified ten countries as emerging markets that are critical for the
world economy for the period ending in 2005. These countries are: Greater China (the
Peoples' Republic of China plus Taiwan and Hong Kong), South Korea, India, Indonesia,
Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Poland and Russia. It was further speculated that
the combined exports of these countries would exceed those of Japan and the European Union
by the year 2005.6 It is notable that two of these countries are from the Mercosur group
(Argentina and Brazil) and only one from Africa  South Africa.
With the ascendancy of socio-economic issues topping international agendas, it is imperative
that individual countries identify strategic partners both at bilateral and multilateral levels.
While it could be argued that the investors, especially in the form of multi-national
corporations (MNCs), are generally pursuing profit targets and therefore would invest in any
country where that could be realised, the host country stands to benefit even more. Direct
investments ensure higher employment levels, increase the national tax base, improve a
country’s infrastructure, and the potential for political instability emanating from lack of
service delivery is vastly reduced. Thus it is crucial for all responsible governments to strike
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
valuable partnership and co-operation agreements with like-minded allies, as South Africa
sought to do with Mercosur.
South Africa's quest for co-operation with its trans-Atlantic neighbours dates as far back as its
conceptualisation of the so-called 'outward movement' policy. That government policy was
geared towards gaining more acceptability from countries that had hitherto sidelined South
Africa due to the policy of apartheid. The first priority was to be southern Africa, then the
rest of Africa and lastly the rest of the world. It had become evident to the South African
government that military prowess had to be complemented with political (diplomatic) and
economic measures. To this effect, Dr Hilgard Muller, Minister of Foreign Affairs (19651977), identified South America in 1968, particularly Brazil and Argentina, as potential
strategic partners.
South Africa was at that stage experiencing tumultuous times in its
political history as the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan-Africanist Congress
(PAC) had just been banned (following the Sharpville events and other anti-government
activities) and the UN had also adopted resolutions calling for economic and diplomatic
sanctions against South Africa.7 The arms embargo imposed on South Africa in 1963 on a
voluntary basis was made mandatory in 1977. Nuclear arms deals were also specifically
proscribed.8 The South African government treated information on the impact of economic
sanctions on the country with utmost secrecy. When the issue of the impact of sanctions was
raised on 12 March 1965 for the first time in parliament by E.G. Malan, Member of
Parliament (MP), there was total unease about the question. Malan asked the Minister of
Economic Affairs, Dr N. Diedericks:
"Whether any countries have refused (a) to buy products from South Africa and (b) to
sell products to South Africa since 1960; if so, which countries and products." He
further wanted to know "what was the total value of (a) imports from and (b) exports to
the countries concerned in (i) the last year preceding the refusal and (ii) the latest year
for which figures are available." 9
To these questions, the Minister of Economic Affairs answered as follows: "I do not regard it
in the national interest to furnish this information."10
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Faced with all odds from the West, South Africa highlighted the strategic importance of the
Southern Hemisphere. The argument was based two fundamental realities. The first one was
aptly articulated by J.J. Engelbrecht, National Party (NP) MP for Algoa, during the debate in
the House of Assembly concerning concerted efforts to expand South Africa’s relations with
other countries. He indicated that the first 15 or 16 years since taking over the reigns of
power, the NP government had to concentrate on consolidating its position and to ‘sell’ and
defend the apartheid idea to the international community.
He equated South Africa’s
isolationism with that of the US which had lasted for many decades.11
The second reality was the apparent nuclear stalemate between the US and the former Soviet
Union, and the possibility that the latter would extend its manoeuvrings southwards. South
Africa contended that the Soviet forces would attempt to outflank the US by overrunning the
countries in the Southern Hemisphere, and South Africa was particularly vulnerable due to its
geostrategic position. To counter such a move by the Soviet Union, a Western-oriented
military alliance fashioned along the lines of the NATO was to be established and called the
South Atlantic Treaty Organisation (SATO). This alliance was to comprise Argentina, Brazil,
Australia and New Zealand. It was hoped that the US would extend its nuclear umbrella to
cover the alliance as well. The net effect of such a move would be to alleviate South Africa's
international isolation. Ironically, most South American geopoliticians also argued along
similar lines that should South Africa fall under the Communist strategic umbrella, the
Communist government would have access to the Indian Ocean, South Atlantic and one of the
most strategic routes around the Cape of Good Hope.12
Even though the alliance idea never came to fruition (or at least, it was never publicly
announced to exist), the 'outward movement' policy helped improve South Africa's
acceptability in South America. By mid-1960, South Africa was already interacting with
some South American countries within specialised strategic clubs such as the Satellite
Communications Agreement which involved the US and other countries. While from South
America only Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia were invited to become members, from
Africa it was only South Africa.13 The main considerations for admitting South Africa to the
group, despite its suspension in the UN, were its technical expertise and geostrategic position.
Having been a South African ambassador in London where he got to interact with a number
of South American diplomatic representatives, Dr Hilgard Muller, paid official visits to
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Brazil, El Salvador, Paraguay and Uruguay on 8-30 July 1966 – the countries which, except
for El Salvador, later formed the Mercosur group. The primary objective of such visits, as Dr
Muller declared, was to implement the Department of Foreign Affairs’ policy of personal
visits to friendly countries and to ensure contact at government level with such countries.14
There was a realisation that these political initiatives had to be augmented with economic
ones as well.
By the late 1960s it had become evident that South Africa's isolation by the international
community was going to be exacerbated by the protectionist policies of the then European
Economic Community (EEC). Africa's lack of buying power of manufactured products
compounded the problem. Thus, the South African government undertook a number of
initiatives to stimulate trans-Atlantic trade flows. These included the following:
In 1968, the state bought bonds issued by the Inter-American Development Bank
to enable South African firms to tender for development projects financed by the
Latin American governments were offered export credits through the Credit
Guarantee Insurance Corporation (CGIC), while the Industrial Development
Corporation (IDC) provided assistance in the financing of projects for exporters.
Participation by South African companies in international trade fairs in Latin
America was facilitated by South African state officials.
State assistance was provided to improve air, shipping and telecommunication
links between South Africa and Latin America.
Diplomatic contact with Latin America was expanded through official visits and
the establishment of new missions.15
South American countries and South Africa, through the Minister of Economic Affairs, J.
Haak, criticised the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) rules, as the latter
favoured the industrialised North to the detriment of the poor South. Thus South Africa
joined the proponents of the NIEO even though the former was regarded as an international
pariah state due to its political system.16 Viewed in this perspective, it is evident that South
Africa's decision to engage South American countries, including those that later formed
Mercosur, was prompted by threats to its broad national security.
Factors such as the
shrinking local market base, increasing international isolation and lack of buying power of
African states, all collectively conspired to threaten South Africa's economic security.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Despite the above arguments indicating the involvement of South Africa in South America,
such involvement, especially on the diplomatic and economic fronts, remained
underdeveloped and subdued owing to the country’s internal political system which was
viewed by the international community with extreme abomination. Ironically, the only real
military threat that ever confronted South Africa came from Cuba. The former South African
Defence Force (SADF) faced the wrath of Cuban forces, which, at the height of the South
Africa-Angola War (or the so-called ‘Border War’) peaked at 50 000 soldiers. As a region,
South America as a whole did not have a common approach towards South Africa prior to
1994. Some even undermined the UN Resolutions to which they were party by secretly
engaging in economic and even military interaction with South Africa. For instance, for the
period 1966-1972, between 60 and 70 per cent of South Africa's total trade with South
America consisted of imports. The average total trade per year for the said period amounted
to a meagre R28 million, namely, R18 million in imports and R10 million in exports. By
1985 this pattern had changed as South Africa was importing R444 million of goods from
South America.17 It is notable that this increase in trade volume between South Africa and
South America coincided with the height of international sanctions and disinvestment
campaigns against the former. The long-standing South African government position towards
South America was that an investment in South America would be to South Africa’s
advantage, not only in terms of economic development for the country but also to gain the
favour of these countries so that they would support South Africa during the UN’s debates on
issues pertaining to South Africa. This was particularly important as the South American
countries normally voted as a bloc and therefore South Africa’s approach had to encompass
the whole region.18
However, such support from the South American countries would not be sufficient, especially
if the immediate neighbourhood was still extremely hostile. Thus, during the debate in
Parliament on 27 March 1968, it was decided that South Africa would have to invest heavily
in the friendly states in Africa, and that such investment should be in the form of loans at low
interest rates and supporting viable development projects. Legislation was enacted creating a
Loan Fund for the Promotion of Economic Co-operation. To this effect, an amount of R5
million, which was a budget surplus for the 1967-1968 financial year, was set aside for that
purpose.19 South Africa’s overall trade over the period 1957-1967 had grown by only half a
per cent.20 In 1968 South Africa’s imports from Africa amounted to R128 million, while
exports were R248 million. In that specific year, trade with Africa, in value terms, surpassed
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
that of trade with Asia, North and South America. Exports to the whole of Asia were worth
R235 million, while to North and South America, exports amounted to R137 million.21
Another more pressing issue which forced South Africa to heed the necessity of strengthening
ties with its neighbourhood, was the increased expansion of communist presence in Africa.
By March 1971, the Chinese and the Russians already had 10 000 technical advisors in Africa
with a view to helping African countries recover from economic difficulties. At the same
time, more than 15 000 African students were being trained in China and Russia. At that
time, the main beneficiaries of communist involvement were Guinea, Burundi, CongoBrazzaville, Uganda, Somalia and Tanzania. There were growing fears that the take-over of
government by the communist-trained liberation movements in these countries would be
replicated further south as a successful model.22 It was therefore crucial for South Africa to
create a cordon sanitaire by supporting countries such as Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia and
Botswana which would serve as growth points for a safe zone.23 Thus South Africa sought to
ensure its own national security by countering the economic insecurity of its immediate
neighbours and those across the South Atlantic.
The suspension of South Africa’s membership of the UN General Assembly was a coup de
grâce in the history of its international relations. South Africa’s Ambassador to the UN was
recalled on 17 November 1974.24 The suspension constituted the ultimate rejection of the
country’s political system and made it extremely difficult to conduct open international
relations with other countries without such countries suffering collateral damage due to their
association with a pariah state. Thus it was a costly enterprise, both in diplomatic, financial
and security terms. Diplomatically, South Africa lost most of its existing and potential allies.
Financially, by March 1976 – after nearly 30 years of UN membership, South Africa had
already paid a total amount of R10 198 739,26 into the UN coffers. In addition to making
contributions in support of specific UN operations such as the Task Force in the Middle East
(UN Emergency Force - UNEF and UN Disengagement Observer Force - UNDOF), South
Africa also made voluntary contributions to UN subsidiary organisations such as the UN
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).25 In the
security arena, South Africa suddenly could not openly declare some allies while the line
between its traditional foes and potential new allies became blurred. This caused much
unease and a sense of insecurity which only a change in the political system could resolve.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
The advent of democracy in South Africa changed the international pariah status, thus
ushering in a new era in the trans-Atlantic relations in the Southern cone. Marking this
change in status were high-level state visits by senior government officials. The first visit to
the Mercosur countries by a democratically-elected South African President was by Nelson
Mandela when he was invited to address the Mercosur Heads of State Summit on 24 July
1998. He was the first head of state from outside Mercosur to be invited to address the
Summit. In his address he emphasised the existence of "new conditions" which prevailed on
both sides of the Atlantic.
Having visited other regional organisations such as the
Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the EU, the Caribbean Community and Common
Market (CCCM), concluding with Mercosur, Mandela lamented the limited achievements of
humanity in striving for peace and development, especially in the developing countries.
Complimenting the efforts made by nations to ensure human security during the last decade of
the twentieth century, he singled out the nations' determination to "pool their sovereignty in
order to achieve together what cannot be achieved separately."26 In this way, he was calling
for states not to over-emphasise their sovereignty but to view security, economic growth and
prosperity for their citizens as primary objectives of any government that is responsive to the
citizens’ needs.
According to Mandela, socio-economic co-operation would help strengthen the South and
also form the basis for advancing a mutually beneficial partnership with the North. Through
co-operation states would be able to face up to the challenges of development and peace
which are beyond the capacity of one nation to tackle alone. He further highlighted South
Africa's geostrategic position, which he thought has a potential of being a bridgehead between
South America, East Asia and Africa.27 Being the first speech by a South African head of
state in South America since the advent of democracy in South Africa, it is notable that he
dedicated a substantial portion of his speech to socio-economic, peace and security issues.
This could have been the laying of a foundation for future co-operation on security issues that
transcend national borders such as combating piracy at sea; narco-trafficking and abuse of the
environment through nuclear testing and global warming. The other countries which have
entered into almost similar bilateral arrangements of co-operation with Mercosur include
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US. While these agreements are largely focused on
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
socio-economic co-operation, they also recognise the undeniable fact there can be no
development without peace and security, thus hinting at the inconclusive nature of issues still
to be covered in the future.28
With Mercosur being the world’s fastest growing trading bloc and the world’s third largest
customs union, after NAFTA and the EU, the benefits that would accrue to South Africa for
associating itself with such a giant are only too conspicuous to ignore. It is against this
background that South Africa is attempting to secure a free trade agreement with Mercosur,
almost along the same lines as the one with the EU which came into effect in January 2000.29
However, South Africa will first have to become an associate member, like Bolivia and Chile.
This could take a long time to materialise because of various factors, including different tariff
structures and the question of incorporating SADC’s interests in the agreement as well.30
The trade relations between South Africa and Mercosur have increased quite substantially
since 1995. While the trade balance remains in favour of the Mercosur countries, particularly
due to the disproportionate influence of Argentina and Brazil in the group, exports to, and
imports from, the Mercosur group have grown since 1995 till 1997 by about 21.9 per cent and
20.4 per cent, respectively. If the associate members (Bolivia and Chile) are considered, the
trade volume in exports and imports increases over the same period by 18.5 per cent and 20.9
per cent, respectively. However, the 1998 Asian crisis in financial markets wreaked havoc on
Brazil and Argentina, the main trade partners in Mercosur. Consequently, there was a slump
in trade volumes as from 1998 to 1999 (see Table 6). Compared with the 1997 figures, this
decline in trade volume represents 12.9 per cent and 23.4 per cent less than the 1997 figures
for imports and exports, respectively.
Table 6:
1 260.0
1 153.3
1 121.4
1 500.0
1 391.0
1 272.3
1 088.3
1 376.1
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
2 826.2
1 951.9
2 484.8
3 074.8
2 224.5
2 634.7
* Denotes ‘associate members of Mercosur’
1 826.8
2 122.1
2 548.4
2 679.3
1 489.7
1 704.0
(%) Denotes decline in imports and exports since 1997.
The South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA). 2000. South African Yearbook of
International Affairs, 2000/01. Johannesburg: SAIIA.
Foreign direct investment by the Mercosur countries in South Africa, and vice versa, gives a
clear picture of mutual recognition and the need for closer co-operation (see Table 7). These
investments are still largely in the indirect sphere, meaning they would use South Africa as a
launch-pad to pursue their interests in the neighbouring countries. However, owing to South
Africa’s commitment to regional development, such indirect investments have positive spinoffs for the country as well, such as keeping economic migrants away, and creating viable
markets for South African goods and services.
Table 7:
MERCOSUR, 1996 (US$m)
SA Investment in Mercosur
Mercosur Investment in SA
Mills, G. & Mutschler, C. (eds.) 1999. Exploring South-South Dialogue: Mercosur in Latin
America & SADC in Southern Africa. Johannesburg: The South African Institute for
International Affairs (SAIIA).
Since former President Mandela's visit to South America, which culminated in his address to
the Mercosur summit, there have been frequent exchanges of high-level delegations by South
Africa and Mercosur members. His successor, President Thabo Mbeki, was also invited to
address the Mercosur summit on 15 December 2000. Like his predecessor, President Mbeki
emphasised the importance of building and strengthening the strategic alliance between the
two entities. Unlike his predecessor, Mbeki viewed such a partnership between South Africa
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
and the Mercosur countries in the context of South-South relations and the need to exert
pressure on the North to accept responsibility for some of the socio-economic ills that are
being experienced by the South. To this effect he called for solidarity in the attempt to
restructure the world economic order. He posited that this would be done through negotiating
for the rebalancing of world trade agreements and international financial systems that are
tilted in favour of the North. Like Mandela, but in a much more explicit manner, Mbeki
indicated that trans-Atlantic co-operation should not be viewed as being limited to trade and
investment issues only, but as including such crucial aspects as conflict resolution and
prevention, peacekeeping operations, namely, the security dimension; and the reform of
international institutions of governance like the UN.31
Despite the discrepancy in the manner in which South American countries dealt with South
Africa, especially prior to 1994, an analysis of relations of individual countries now
constituting Mercosur with South Africa, reveals a selective approach. Put differently, while
denouncing South Africa’s internal political system, most countries in South America
changed their foreign policies in respect of South Africa in accordance with their immediate
national interests. Similarly, South Africa’s relations with the individual countries have
evolved in a chequered manner, namely, its foreign policy towards these countries vacillated
from friendship to mild animosity as the situation dictated at the time.32
3.3.1 Argentina
The relations between South Africa and Argentina can be traced back to the arrival in
Argentina of three groups of white Afrikaans-speaking people  called Boers  between
1902 and 1905. It was just after the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) that these groups settled in
Comodoro Rivadavia, Chubut Province in Patagonia. Ever since their migration to Argentina,
the Boer community has multiplied and continues to practise their South African cultures,
including speaking Afrikaans.
In 1960 the South African government established an
Honorary Consulate in Comodoro Rivadavia. This community's contribution to the economic
and military security of Argentina has been significant since its arrival. They are even said to
have participated in the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982 on the side of Argentina against the
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
The foundation established by these socio-economic and cultural ties between South Africa
and Argentina, was never solid and the relations have since the 1960s been marred by the
inconsistency caused by successive military governments in Argentina. As Tulchin34 aptly
puts it, “Argentina … changed foreign policies and its posture on international issues more
frequently than Diego Maradona scored goals.” The imports from Argentina as a percentage
of the total imports from South America for the period 1966-1985 averaged about 18 per cent
per year.35 However, as Table 6 indicates, by 1997 South Africa’s exports to Argentina stood
at R1 260 million and imports R467 million, thus representing a 16.1 per cent and 12.2 per
cent increase from 1995. In 1997 Argentina was South Africa’s 27th largest export market,
while South Africa was Argentina’s 21st largest export destination.36
When Raúl Alfonsín became President of Argentina on 10 December 1983, one of his
priorities was to position the country in the international arena. To this effect he severed
diplomatic ties with South Africa in 1986. This was due to latter’s internal political situation
and international pariah status. President Alfonsín was keen to win greater international
acceptability and is said to have aspired to become the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement
(NAM). Thus he concluded that winning the hearts of the Third World countries would
require that he ostracised South Africa. Furthermore, disengaging from South Africa would
not only help endear him (and Argentina) in the eyes of the international community but
would also ensure support (in the form of votes) at the UN, especially with regard to the
Falklands/Malvinas question. However, President Carlos Saúl Menem reversed this situation
when he took power in July 1989. President Menem deemed the severance of diplomatic
relations with South Africa a ‘political error’.
It was only in January 1992 that an
Argentinean ambassador presented his credentials to then President F.W. de Klerk.37 In this
way, one of Mercosur's economic giants had joined the international community in readmitting South Africa to the international fold as the latter’s internal political situation was
improving. Nelson Mandela, who later became president of South Africa, had just been
released, political parties had been unbanned, and a serious political dialogue was underway
in the form of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA).
In a process which Leysens calls a "new outward movement", there is renewed enthusiasm in
cementing ties between South Africa and Argentina.38
This policy is predicated on
strengthening economic ties as the significance of the military has receded in both countries.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Hampering these efforts have been the creation of trading blocs with strong protectionist
tendencies. While Mercosur was initially fairly protectionist in its approach, it has realised
that it cannot achieve much without involving countries in the South as well. There is also a
realisation that all the countries in the Global South occupy an inferior position in the pyramid
of nations in the global political economy, and also with regard to the four primary power
structures, namely, security, production, finance and knowledge.39
The democratisation processes in both Argentina and South Africa have borne fruit in many
respects. As in South Africa, the international community has accepted the irreversible nature
of democratic transition in Argentina and, accordingly, rewarded it with favourable terms for
the refinancing of foreign debt. International lending agencies have also acknowledged the
economic liberalisation taking place within Mercosur, especially Argentina, which is
complying with the renowned ‘good governance’ or ‘second-generation reform’
conditionality clauses. As a group, Mercosur has also introduced democracy as a prerequisite
for membership. These conditions help generate economic prosperity and reduce the socioeconomic plight of citizens, thus reducing the probability of returning to military or autocratic
The need for a politically stable and economically growing democracy is illustrated by the
role of Brazil within the group in fostering relations across the South Atlantic sub-region.
During his visit to Argentina in July 1998, President Mandela witnessed the signing of a
number of agreements among the Mercosur member states which provided strategic lesson for
the Southern African sub-region generally, and South African in particular. However, the
most important of these agreements, from a global peace and democratic perspective, was the
Democratic Protocol of Ushuaia. The Protocol  popularly known as the Democratic Clause
 prohibits “the participation in the bloc by countries in which the constitutional order is
violated”.41 The signing of the Protocol was a culmination of the process initiated at the San
Luis Summit (in Argentina) in 1996, following General Lino Oviedo’s threat of carrying out a
coup d'tat against the democratically government of President Juan Carlos Wasmosy of
Paraguay. The Mercosur countries were unequivocal in condemning General Oviedo’s plans
and they stated that they would impose sanctions on Paraguay and its membership to
Mercosur would be terminated if he went ahead with the coup.42 It was only a few months
after the signing of the Protocol that it was put to test during the assassination of Paraguay’s
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Vice-President Luis Maria Argaña, in March 1999. At that stage the country was facing a real
possibility of a civil war when the Mercosur countries boldly and unflinchingly acted in
averting the imminent disaster. This resulted in the resignation of President Raúl Cubas after
he was implicated in the assassination and the subsequent installation of Luis González
Macchi as the new president.43
The signing of the Protocol happened while the then President of South Africa, Nelson
Mandela, was still in Argentina. During his visit he signed three bilateral agreements between
South Africa and the Mercosur countries, namely, on combating drug-trafficking; reciprocal
investment promotion and protection to encourage greater investment flows between the two
countries; and on consultations about ‘issues of common interest’. The other agreements
signed by the Mercosur countries during a similar occasion, excluding the Democratic
Protocol of Ushuaia, were the following:44
Consumer protection. In terms of this agreement, member states undertook to
abide by a single consumer protection code, particularly with regard to health
products, combating abusive clauses in contracts, and unfair competition.
Gaming laws. Member states undertook to conduct studies towards a common
rule for raffles, lotteries, competitions and telemarketing.
Services. Member states undertook to liberalise their markets and provide lists of
proposals for ‘united services’. This was to be done in a phased manner, namely,
according to each country’s level of readiness with regard to liberalisation.45
These agreements signal a higher degree of commitment to regional co-operation which is
still absent in the SADC. By becoming an associate member of Mercosur, South Africa
would be able to link up to these agreements in a manner that is tailor-made for its conditions,
especially taking cognisance of unique conditions and needs of Southern African countries.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
3.3.2 Brazil
The strategic value of Brazil to South Africa was recognised by both countries early in the
historical development of relations between the two. These relations were rooted in a number
of commonalities and some mutually complementary differences in their national characters
and natural resource endowment. However, as was the case with Argentina, the development
of diplomatic relations between the two countries has been characterised by numerous
hurdles, largely emanating from South Africa’s previous political system and unacceptable
racial policies.
Historical development of relations
There are striking commonalities between the historical development of the political systems
of Brazil and South Africa.
Both countries have experienced oppressive military or
securocratic rule. Large-scale violation of human rights characterised such rule in both states.
Some left-wing political parties were banned in South Africa and Brazil in 1960 and 1965,
respectively. With the transition to multi-party democracy, both countries benefited from the
visionary and reconciliatory leadership of Presidents Nelson Mandela and Fernando Henrique
Cardoso of South Africa and Brazil, respectively, both coincidentally elected in 1994.46
Given their bloody and divided past, both countries are still faced with a daunting task of
national reconciliation and nation-building. The gap between the rich and poor remains one
of the challenges facing the two countries.
Brazil’s Real Plan and South Africa’s
Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) and the Growth, Employment and
Redistribution (GEAR) strategy, seek to address these socio-economic concerns. Brazil’s
linguistic and historic ties with Mozambique and, especially, Angola, and the mining and oil
investments in the latter country, imply that South Africa and Brazil shared the concerns
about the previous lack of peace and security in Angola.47 Furthermore, both countries have a
dominant status in their respective sub-regions (or areas of influence), in economic and
military terms. They are also aspiring to greater political ambitions that include permanent
membership to the reformed UN Security Council of the future.48
The historical ties between Southern Africa and Brazil are even more intriguing in many
respects. Contrary to popular belief, Brazil made contact with Southern Africa even before
Jan van Riebeeck set foot in the Cape. Salvador de Sá, Governor of Rio de Janeiro, sailed
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
from Brazil in 1648 to rescue Angola that was being attacked by the Dutch.
After a
successful mission he sailed back to Brazil. It was only four years later that Jan van Riebeeck
arrived in the Cape. Even more intriguing is the fact that Riebeeck’s father died in Brazil
during the Dutch occupation and was buried in Pernambuco.49
The slave trade that characterised the economic activities of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries was responsible for a great number of Blacks (Negroes) who eventually became
citizens of Brazil. The main sources of Negro slaves were Angola, the Kingdom of Congo
and Sudan. 50 In 1822, the newly independent Brazilian nation only had about four million
citizens. About 50 per cent of the citizens were slaves  both Brazilian-born slaves and
those from Africa. In 1835, in the city of Salvador, the capital of the state of Bahia, about
26,5 per cent of the population were African slaves, 15,5 per cent Brazilian slaves, 7,1 per
cent freed African, and 22,7 per cent freed Black Brazilians.51
During the period after the Anglo-Boer War up to 1922, trade relations between South Africa
and Brazil were still mired in a controversy that largely emanated from General C.J. Smuts’s
negative perception of Brazil. The Brazilian government sent a cable message dated 16
January 1922 to General Smuts in connection with trade links. The Secretary to the Prime
Minister of South Africa wrote to Owen Smith, the Commissioner of Customs and Excise
(Cape Town), suggesting that a cable message be published detailing Brazil-South Africa
trade relations. Dr Marais, South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote to General
Smuts informing him of the situation. For reasons known only to himself, General Smuts was
not in favour of the appointment of a Consul-General representing Brazil in Cape Town. He
therefore suggested in a telegram (dated 23 January 1922) that Dr Marais should not
‘sanction’ the appointment of such a Consul-General. Unfortunately, by that time a certain
Senhor Paulo Semoro had already been appointed by the Brazilian government more than two
years before (that is before 1920), but he had not yet assumed office, pending confirmation
from the South African government. At that stage, H.W. Blackburn, who was already in Cape
Town, continued to exercise the functions of Consul of Brazil, albeit informally.
international practice was (and still is) that appointments are made by the foreign government
concerned and were only to be accepted by the Union government in this case.52 From
correspondence between General Smuts and his ministers, it appears that the former was not
in favour of the appointment of any person or Consul-General from Brazil. While the Consul-
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
General was eventually appointed to Cape Town, it is also not clear if General Smuts’s
reluctance to accept a Consul-General from Brazil was reflective of strained political relations
between the two countries at the time or whether it was based on other considerations.
However, being a renowned internationalist, it is possible that General Smuts viewed such
relations as premature or unsuitable for his plan at the time.
It was only in 1941 that South Africa started to vigorously pursue the process of appointing a
Consul in Brazil. On 4 July 1941 General Smuts, who was the South African Prime Minister
and Minister of External Affairs and of Defence, wrote to the British monarch requesting
permission to appoint James Alexander Chapman (a British subject) as the Union Consul in
Brazil to be based in Saõ Paulo and responsible for that region and other neighbouring
Chapman was eventually appointed as the Union Consul.53
The British
representatives in Saõ Paulo would work separately from the Union representative. Chapman,
who would still be subordinate to the British Ambassador in Brazil, would be responsible for
all Union needs except passport-related issues which would be referred to the British
representatives. Chapman remained the honorary Union Consul in Brazil until 1944 and was
re-appointed to the same position in 1947. The items most suitable for trade at the time from
South Africa were dried fruit, wines and feathers, and from Brazil were timber, coffee and
It is undeniably true that despite the long historical ties between the two countries, Brazil’s
foreign policy has always been double-edged and ambiguous. On the one hand, Brazil
politically denounced South Africa’s political system of exclusion, but embraced trade
relations on the other. By 1967, the trade balance between the two countries was 14 to 1 in
Brazil’s favour. It was only in the same year that South Africa – as a republic – opened a
commercial office in Rio de Janeiro.55 Since then relations between the two countries grew
from strength to strength. Obviously, South Africa made more concessions to Brazil in
strengthening the ties than vice versa. For instance, South Africa was offering generous
bursaries for Brazilian students to study in South Africa. It was hoped that Brazil would
reciprocate in kind.56
Brazil’s foreign policy towards Africa has developed and matured over time. The Itamaraty
(Brazil’s Foreign Office) increasingly became determined to pursue its foreign policy towards
Africa, irrespective of negative sensitivities especially from Washington.
The apparent
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
crumbling of the Portuguese colonial empire in the mid-1970s enabled Brazil to develop
strong diplomatic ties with Africa; improve links with oil-producing Arab countries; and also
to play a significant role in regional affairs.57 For Brazil the rationale for cementing ties with
Africa in general, and South Africa in particular, was based on the following interests:
An increase in trade relations involving, on a preferential basis, the barter of
manufactured products for raw materials, destined for use in the new Brazilian
industries, or the general expansion of all types of sales to new markets.
Defence of national economic interests in the competition between commodities,
notably coffee, cocoa, sugar, cotton, including an attempt to persuade the African
states which are associated with the European Common Market to establish
common preferential tariffs.
The encouragement of solidarity between developing countries to make it possible
to negotiate as a group with the developed countries, in order to reverse
unfavourable trade terms and gain other economic concessions claimed by the
Group of 77.
Preservation of the Portuguese language and culture in Africa, to serve as a
facilitating factor towards a future Brazilian presence on the African continent.
The growth of national prestige as a leader among developing countries, an
emerging medium power, utilising the projected image of a civilisation that is
pacific, multiracial, and a model of tropical industrialisation.
The exchange of technical know-how in fields such as nuclear energy, tropical
medicine, tropical agriculture, civil aviation, architecture and road construction.58
Viewed from the South African perspective these areas of interests are important and there is
a symbiotic relationship from which both states benefit.
Current relations
The current state of socio-economic relations between the two countries was initiated on 2
September 1991 when the Chairman of the Brazilian Group in Latin American Parliament,
Congressman Ney Lopes, proposed to the Congress that economic sanctions against South
Africa be lifted. He also proposed that a Brazilian Ambassador be appointed in Pretoria. He
argued that Brazil was going to lose out on the South African market as many other countries
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
were lifting sanctions. President Fernando Collor de Mello subsequently visited South Africa
from 8 to 14 September 1991. Following Lopes’ advice, the Sarney Decree No. 91524 of 9
August 1985 was rescinded on 17 January 1992. In terms of that announcement by the
Brazilian government, normal “scientific, cultural and sporting links with South Africa”
would be resumed.59 The UN embargoes on arms and petroleum remained in place.
Despite the relative increase of trade links between Brazil and South Africa, the personality
factor has on numerous occasions almost derailed trans-Atlantic co-operation. For instance,
former President Collor threatened to delink Brazil from the Third World, arguing that "it is
better to be the last country of the First World than the first country in the Third."60 However,
this never happened and his successor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, strengthened socioeconomic and diplomatic ties with Africa. In fact, when South Africa was readmitted into the
international family of nations, it identified twelve strategic partners, one of which was Brazil
 the only one in South America.61
As from 1994, Brazil became South Africa's biggest trading partner in South America and one
of the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. While the bilateral trade figures between Brazil
and South Africa reached R2 billion, by 1995 Brazil's share of South Africa's export market in
South America was already over 50 per cent. During the same year South Africa enjoyed a
trade surplus with Brazil, despite the sheer size and diversity of Brazilian economy  the
state of São Paulo has a GDP that is larger than that of the whole of South Africa.62
The visit of the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Luiz Felipe Lampreia, to South Africa in May
1995, paved the way for the later visit of President Cardoso which took place on 26
November 1996. Lampreia's brief was reportedly to conduct exploratory talks with South
Africa. Given the fact that South Africa would like to entrench and market its regionalist
foreign policy and has a strong European tradition, and that Brazil would like to be associated
positively with the Indian Ocean Rim, Lampreia was reportedly instructed to investigate how
Brazil could forge meaningful ties with South Africa with the possibility of extending such
ties to involve Mercosur and SADC.63 Of course, this was a mammoth task. When President
Cardoso eventually visited South Africa, he stated unequivocally that his visit was aimed at
strengthening socio-economic co-operation between the two countries. While the visit was
largely for economic purposes, Cardoso indicated that he also wanted to cement political ties.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
The kind of co-operation he sought with South Africa was to be in all fields of human
endeavour but particularly culture, air services and anti-drug trafficking.64 During his visit
the following agreements were finalised:
Bilateral Air Services Agreement.
Control of Narcotics Agreement.
Cultural Co-operation Agreement.
The exchange of Notes for the reciprocal lifting of visas for tourism and business
purposes for all categories of passports (not exceeding 90 days).
The Presidential Declaration between South Africa and Brazil.65
For the first time in the history of Brazil-South Africa relations, a career diplomat was
appointed as ambassador to South Africa in April 1996. Ambassador Otto A. Maia was
appointed with the rank of Under Secretary-General, the highest ever appointment to a
diplomatic post by Brazil to any African country.66
As already indicated, former President Mandela had reciprocated the visit in 1998 which
included the signing on 21 July 1998 of the so-called Mandela-Cardoso Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning Consultations on Issues of Common Interest. On 21 October
1998, a Declaration of Intent on Land Policy was signed between Brazil and South Africa.
The other agreements that were to receive attention were, inter alia, those concerning
Technical Co-operation; Avoidance of Double Taxation; and Promotion and Reciprocal
Protection of Investments.67
President Mandela's successor, Thabo Mbeki, also made a
follow-up visit to Brazil from 12-15 December 2000, which culminated in his address to the
Mercosur Heads of States Summit.
In their bilateral deliberations, the two presidents
concluded that both countries are facing almost similar circumstances and challenges. To this
effect they signed an agreement establishing a Joint Commission which would focus on the
following areas of interest: trade, investment, human resource development and health cooperation. This was viewed as a basis for integration of the economies of Mercosur and
South Africa.68 Other issues that enjoyed their attention included international security issues
such as drug-trafficking and the trade in small arms.69
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
The symbiotic link between Brazil's involvement in South Africa and Southern Africa is
further accentuated because the latter is expected to maximally utilise the former's
involvement in the sub-region even if such involvement is not in South Africa. For instance,
the involvement of the two major Brazilian construction companies  Mendes Júnior and
Odebrecht  which built a huge Campanda hydroelectric plant in Angola in 1992, rely on
South Africa being prepared to consume substantial energy.
According to the former
Brazilian ambassador to Namibia in 1991, Mario Augusto Santos, it was envisaged that a
strong partnership involving Brazil, Angola, Namibia and South Africa would be established.
He further demonstrated South Africa's indispensability if Brazil is to become meaningfully
involved in the sub-region.70
3.3.3 Paraguay
Historically, political, economic and social relations between Paraguay and South Africa have
never been a priority for both countries. Like some South American countries, Paraguay
never severed political (diplomatic) and economic ties with South Africa, even at the height
of international condemnation of the southern African state. Various heads of state and senior
ranking officials from South Africa continued to pay official visits to Paraguay.71 This was
not a demonstration by South Africa of any intrinsic value that she attached to that country as
such, but because it enabled her to counter international isolation.
However, with the
formation of Mercosur, following the signing of the Treaty of Asunción in Asunción  the
capital of Paraguay  this situation changed.
Relations changed from those based on
symbolism to those of realism. Despite the country's small geographic size, its partnership
with such countries as Argentina and Brazil in Mercosur, makes Paraguay an invaluable
strategic partner with a view to accessing Mercosur's massive market. It also has the potential
to serve as a launching-pad for South Africa's economic operations in the neighbouring
3.3.4 Uruguay
Like Paraguay, Uruguay never severed, but scaled down, political (diplomatic) and economic
ties with South Africa during the apartheid era. However, it was only in 1991 that the
Uruguayan government, which had been inaugurated in March 1990, decided to establish a
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
full diplomatic mission in Pretoria. It is generally believed that, from both Uruguay's and
South America's perspective, the main rationale for cementing diplomatic ties with South
Africa stemmed from the desire to secure the African vote in international forums and also to
be in the same camp as the Third World countries.
This is particularly important in
organisations such as the UN and the Latin American Group (GRULA), where member states
have to vote and support positions en bloc. Favourable political and economic ties facilitate a
positive inclination from member states if certain positions are to be adopted. Uruguay is
known for her extremely advanced financial system unparalleled in the whole of South
America  hence its popularity as "the Switzerland of Latin America".73 Thus South Africa
can capitalise on the skills-transfer programmes that could be entered into with Uruguay.
Being the administrative capital of Mercosur, Uruguay presents a unique opportunity to
influence and gain concessions from other Mercosur partners.
3.3.5 Bolivia and Chile
Both countries  Bolivia and Chile  but especially the latter, have maintained close
relations with South Africa even during the time of isolation. For a long period Chile was
under military rule and therefore suffered international isolation just like South Africa. Given
their similar international status, it was prudent for Chile and South Africa to interact quite
Their interaction spanned across the full spectrum of areas of mutual benefit,
including trade, defence and diplomatic relations. It is also notable that in both countries
(Chile and South Africa) the democratisation process commenced in earnest in the early
1990s. Chile had always been represented by a charge d'affaires in South Africa, until
President Patricio Aylwin (1990-1994) upgraded diplomatic representation to Pretoria to
ambassadorial level.74 Subsequently, in January 1995, the Chilean Minister of the Economy,
Dr Alvaro Garía, led a high-powered delegation to South Africa. The visit paved the way for
the official visit of the Chilean President and strengthened the already existing ties, especially
in the mining, manufacturing and forestry sectors.75
It was only with the state visit by the first democratically elected Chilean President Eduardo
Frei Ruiz-Tagle to South Africa that a new chapter in the political relations between the two
countries was opened. President Frei has always emphasised co-operation between the two
countries, not so much for security-related challenges, but with a view to increasing trade,
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
development and direct investment. Like all other statesmen, President Frei maintains that
the bilateral relations between Chile and South Africa should encompass all facets of human
endeavour.76 As a stable and developing economy, Chile has succeeded in ensuring the
economic security of its citizens both by diversifying her export destinations and strategically
associating itself with winning successful regional groupings such as APEC, Mercosur and
NAFTA. As much as membership of too many organisations could compound the process of
standardisation and designing of suitable economic policies that are in accordance with
regulations of different organisations, it enables Chile to extract advantages without being
entangled in the intricacies of being a full member. It is against this background that South
Africa is seeking to link up with the Mercosur members both at bilateral and multilateral
levels. Overlapping membership helps cast the safety net much wider, thus providing a
comprehensive security framework for dealing with security threats across the whole
Unlike Chile, Bolivia maintained low-profile relations with South Africa, especially during
the period of isolation. However, with the reinsertion of South Africa into the international
community the Bolivian government has shown strong support for strengthening ties with
South Africa. Being a small country with limited resources, Bolivia has not succeeded in
elevating relations to ambassadorial level.
It is, however, envisaged that when Bolivia
becomes a full member of Mercosur, as it is of the Andean Community (AC), it will play an
important role in bridging the interaction between the AC and Mercosur, which will benefit
South Africa. In addition to that, it has substantial natural gas reserves which may require
South African technology and expertise to optimally exploit in terms of exports to Brazil and
other members of Mercosur.77
The relations between South Africa and the countries currently constituting (or associated
with) Mercosur have vast potential for having a positive and negative impact on SADC. This
is particularly important in the context that South Africa is a dominant member of SADC, and
therefore any bilateral trade or security agreement with any non-SADC member(s) could have
far-reaching consequences for the sub-regional organisation. Thus, it is crucial that South
Africa-Mercosur talks should include the dimension of inter-regional co-operation, namely,
linking up both Mercosur and SADC, with South Africa playing a facilitating role.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
The ultimate need for co-operation between the two sub-regional organisations  Mercosur
and SADC  cannot be over-emphasised. This stems from the reality that any gains that
could accrue to South Africa due to successful interaction with Mercosur or its members
would be negated by the adverse effect that such interaction might have on the southern
African sub-region. However, South Africa’s first priority is to confront some contentious
issues pertaining to its strategic orientation vis-à-vis Africa and sensitivities regarding its ‘bigbrother’ image.
Despite pronouncements indicating the contrary, South Africa is faced with a real dilemma of
political orientation which affects its socio-economic power base. The debate, which began
after South Africa’s readmission to the international community in the early 1990s, revolves
around the strategic orientation of its foreign policy, that is, whether it should be directed
towards the rich Global North and Asia or towards the poor Global South. Some analysts
argue that with the demise of the former Soviet Union and apartheid, there is a conscious
effort to de-ideologise international relations. Based on this understanding, South Africa
should actively participate in the globalisation process by penetrating global markets and
gaining a competitive edge. Others believe that solidarity with the poor South is more
appropriate, given South Africa's recent past where the poor nations of the world helped fight
for its liberation. Thus, contrary to those who take a global view, or globalists, this group
posits that South Africa should adopt a strong regionalist approach which seeks to improve
regional economic development and political solidarity, irrespective of the challenges of
globalisation. While a globalist approach would imply that South Africa should be cautious
in participating in such groupings as the Group of 77, the regionalists advocate a strong
involvement and even playing a leading role in NAM and developing the African continent,
especially SADC.78
The globalism–regionalism debate is particularly important as it could determine the extent to
which South Africa would be prepared to engage its trans-Atlantic neighbours in support of
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
projects to develop the Southern African sub-region. The development of the sub-region
implies less dependence on South Africa and less pressure on the latter’s resources due to
economic refugees migrating southwards. However, South Africa has already decided that it
would apply a ‘butterfly approach’, but simultaneously seek to uplift the continent and the
sub-region. The imaginary body of the butterfly is clearly oriented north-south to the EU and
North America, along the axis of South Africa's traditional trading and investment flows, and
its wings extending laterally to South American markets and those of Asia. The South AfricaEU agreement was an unambiguous demonstration of this thinking.79
While individual countries in the South Atlantic endeavour to augment co-operation on a
bilateral basis, it is equally crucial that they keep their immediate sub-regional neighbours in
mind. All efforts by South Africa to engage Mercosur should concurrently include an interregional agenda. Therefore, for every political and economic deal struck between these
entities, South Africa should consider the potential impact of such a deal on the sub-region.
Both the Asunción Treaty and the SADC Treaty make provision for interaction with extraregional entities, provided such interaction is not prejudicial to the organisation’s goals.80
Comparing the level of focus on development which is displayed by Mercosur and SADC,
Alec Erwin, the South African Minister of Trade and Industry, expressed concern that the
latter organisation was originally established for socio-economic development of the region
but it is "pre-occupied with military conflict at the expense of its ostensible goal of economic
union and progress."81
Erwin was accentuating the inextricable link between economic
development, peace and security. While South Africa recognises the significance of SADC in
geographic terms, it is also conscious of the fact that the latter cannot be a means of the
former's economic salvation. It is against this background that South African trade policy is
driven by the so-called ‘trade butterfly’ approach. South Africa has adopted a regional
approach to development in realising that, as former Foreign Minister Alfred Nzo aptly put it,
it “cannot be an island of prosperity surrounded by a sea of poverty.”82 President Mbeki has
on numerous occasions demonstrated his commitment to alleviating the socio-economic
plight of African people by engaging and challenging the international financial and trade
regimes which militate against development in Africa. On numerous occasions Erwin and
Lampreia have publicly called for a closer co-operation between SADC and Mercosur.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
However, there is always a realisation that this is easier said than done. A tariff agreement
between Mercosur and the SADC will not easily be reached.83 Despite criticism from some
cynics, South Africa has negotiated trade deals with this in mind. Trans-Atlantic relations in
the Southern Cone should be geared towards assisting to achieve that goal.
SADC comprises 14 countries (Angola, Botswana, the DRC, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Namibia, the Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and
Zimbabwe) while Mercosur only has four member states. In addition to the huge differences
in terms of population and territorial sizes, the performance of Mercosur far outstrips that of
SADC (see Table 8). In 1999 trade activity within Mercosur stood at 20 per cent compared
with 5-6 per cent in SADC. Some analysts posit that SADC is bound to fail given the number
of member states which are amongst the least developed in the world, operating with shoestring budgets incapable of servicing external debt (in 1996 the average debt burden as a
percentage of GDP was 50 per cent for SADC, compared with 28 per cent for Mercosur) and
providing basic services to citizens; plagued with protracted and almost intractable intra-state
conflicts; and having a legacy of poor governance. These conditions no longer apply in the
Mercosur group as the democratisation process is now firmly entrenched, sub-regional
rivalries have receded, and the economic growth rates of member states are impressive. There
Table 8:
(million km2)
GDP in 1996
(US$ bn)
Ave Annual %
Increase in Real
GDP (1990-1995)
Mercosur plus associated
Mercosur excl. Brazil
European Union
SADC excl. South Africa
n/a = Not available
Mills, G. and Mutschler, C. 1999. (eds.) Exploring South-South Dialogue: Mercosur in Latin
America & SADC in Southern Africa. Johannesburg: South African Institute of International
Affairs (SAIIA).
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
is a conspicuously disproportionate influence of South Africa and Brazil with their
contributions in 1996 to regional GDPs amounting to 71 per cent and 72 per cent,
respectively. The average annual economic growth rate of Mercosur is about twice as high as
that of SADC. The GDP of SADC is almost one-fifth of the GDP of Mercosur, while the per
capita income of SADC is less by one-third.84
There are sensitivities about South Africa’s ‘big brother’ image, both on the sub-region and
the African region. While neighbouring states appreciate the positive role played by South
Africa in contributing towards regional development and integration, they resent the fact that
interaction between SADC and other sub-regions or regions is viewed mainly in terms of
South Africa’s involvement. For instance, more than 80 per cent of trade between SADC and
Mercosur is attributed to the involvement of South Africa. In 1996 SADC’s exports to
Mercosur amounted to US$722 million and imports US$667 million. Thus, the only true
potential partner with the Mercosur group is South Africa.85
The question occasionally arises whether South Africa should be concerned about being
perceived as a ‘big brother’, regardless of resentment and jealousy from the sub-region.
During the Mercosur-SADC conference on regional integration in the South that was held in
Cape Town on 26 October 1998, Guillermo Mondimo, the Director of Argentina’s
Mediterranean Foundation, posed the question: “Why isn’t South Africa leading the process
and setting parameters towards integration of the regional economy?” He further asked, “Is
South Africa feeling guilty for being rich? You have to lead your neighbours to (help them)
get wealthy.
The SADC should join forces and use the Rand (as a common regional
currency). Then you could use the revenue generated on member states’ reserves and share it
among countries adopting the Rand.”86
These sentiments seem to be prevalent among
observers from outside the sub-region. South Africa’s economic and political security are
inextricably linked to that of the sub-region and therefore it is imperative that something is
done to uplift the region for South Africa’s own benefit. However, issues of territorial
integrity, national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of another country
come to the fore and thus obscure opportunities beyond such issues. This is partly attributable
to the fact that some governments in the sub-region are insecure because of either having
come to power through military coups, rigging the election results, or winning with a
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
perilously slim margin. It could also be attributed to the fact that South Africa, as a new
democracy and therefore relatively new in the international relations arena, could not be seen
as assuming leadership of a collection of states which are led by seasoned, tried-and-tested
statesmen who, for many years, represented regional interests in international fora and
Further compounding the challenge of proper co-operation between the two blocs is the fact
that both are still grappling with the modalities of either including new members (especially
in the case of Mercosur) or to accommodate bilateral agreements that do not include all the
members of the group (such as the South Africa-EU Agreement). Mercosur is attempting to
gather Bolivia, Chile and Venezuela under its umbrella.
It is also involved with the
discussions on the American Free Trade Area (AFTA); it is conducting negotiations with the
EU in the framework of the agreement signed in 1995; and at the same time maintaining the
dialogue with the ANZERTA (Australia/New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade
Agreement).87 However, it already has preferential trade links with NAFTA, the AC and the
While Mercosur still aspires to have strong relations with other regional blocs and to
strengthen South-South trade, South Africa boasts of its geostrategic position which is suited
to furthering Mercosur’s ideal of creating a bridge which joins South America, Southern
Africa and Asia.88 Both Mercosur and South Africa have gained substantial experience
during their respective involvement in protracted FTA negotiations with organisations such as
the EU and NAFTA. Given that both South Africa and Brazil, a dominant member of
Mercosur, are extremely sensitive to socio-economic issues such as unemployment,
development and combating poverty, it can be expected that increased economic interaction
between the two countries will be characterised by sensitivity to the side-effects of a mutual
opening up of markets for certain industries. Their individual experiences  South Africa
and the EU with regard to specific agricultural products, and Argentina and Brazil with regard
to the automotive industry  should help them design a people-friendly accord. The urgency
in concluding such an FTA is further justified due to the collapse of the World Trade
Organisation ministerial meeting in 1999, as the EU members refused to compromise on the
question of subsidising agricultural products. It is therefore imperative to open new markets
and strengthen trade relations across the South Atlantic.89
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
As much as South Africa is eager to ensure stronger trade relations with the North due to the
latter’s buying power and considerable market, there is general concurrence that relations with
the South will be even more beneficial in terms of long-term strategic, economic and political
Not only are the distances shorter to countries in the South, but there is also
congruence and mutual understanding of one another’s challenges. Co-operation between
SADC and Mercosur would help ensure lifting the standard of living of citizens and thus
more peace and stability will prevail as fewer people will be faced with basic challenges of
By the end of 2001 there was still no formal trade arrangement or agreement
between SADC and Mercosur.
The only semi-official interaction between SADC and
Mercosur, as sub-regional organisations, was the conference co-sponsored by the members of
Mercosur and SADC, and hosted by the South African Institute for International Affairs
(SAIIA), in Johannesburg, from 27 to 28 October 1998. The theme of the conference was
“Mercosur/Mercosul and SADC: Regional Integration in the South”.91 Thus, trans-Atlantic
business transactions or foreign investments are conducted by private entrepreneurs outside
the formal framework provided by government. This excludes bilateral agreements that exist
between the countries on both sides of the South Atlantic Ocean.92
However, it is also for instance in the area of organised crime where both sub-regions and
individual countries could co-operate fruitfully. The concept of ‘organised crime’, as seen by
the South African Police Service (SAPS), refers to “a well-organised and structured group
with a clear leadership corps, which is involved in different criminal activities such as drug
trafficking, vehicle theft or money laundering.
Such syndicates have well-established
contacts with national and international criminal organisations, cartels or mafia groupings.”93
For ensuring successful operation, organised criminal syndicates, including those in South
Africa, share some common characteristics, which include the following:
a hierarchy of control, with clearly designated systems of promotion and payment;
sophisticated procedures, often via legitimate business interests, to launder money
obtained by means of illegal activities; and
the use of weapons to ensure that ‘business’ routes are protected and potential
competitors eliminated.94
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
The need to use weapons is particularly prevalent amongst drug-traffickers and South Africa
is extremely vulnerable to this criminal activity, especially since the advent of democracy. It
is against this background that a brief analysis of drug-trafficking and its links with the South
American countries is warranted.
As already indicated, the readmission of South Africa into the international fold resulted in an
unprecedented influx of foreigners, with both bona fide and mala fide intentions. At the time
when there were concerns about increased vulnerability to espionage (internal and external),
there were also concerns about the possibility of increased organised criminal activity,
characterised by being more transnational and difficult to detect. There is sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that the increase in organised criminal activity is particularly prevalent during
periods of political transition. South Africa was no exception to the rule. For instance, during
the demise of communist rule and the collapse of the East Bloc, there were literally thousands
of criminal organisations that mushroomed, involving current and former members of the
security establishment.95
Even though South Africa had a limited exposure to drug-
trafficking during the apartheid years, periodic gang fights erupted in the Western Cape due to
competition for clients for drugs and protection of ‘business’ routes. As the new political
dispensation was introduced, South African borders became even more porous, thus resulting
in relatively easy shipment of drugs in and out of the country. This coincided with a serious
clampdown on drug-traffickers elsewhere, especially in North America and Europe.
Consequently, the Southern African sub-region became a favourite ‘trade’ route, linking the
Far and Middle East, the Americas and Europe. Making it even more lucrative was the fact
that trans-shipment in South Africa could be conducted by sea, land or air. It was against this
background that South Africa, in particular, obtained the dubious recognition of having an
organised crime problem second only to Columbia and Russia. During the pre-1994 period,
mandrax was South Africa’s number one hard drug, followed by cannabis. In the post-1994
period, cocaine became the most popular hard drug.96
By 1998, the SAPS estimated that South Africa was home to approximately 192 organised
crime syndicates and only 96 were under police surveillance. About 96 of these syndicates
specialised in drug-trafficking, while 83 concentrated on vehicle-related crimes, and 60 were
involved in commercial crime or any combination of these.97 To deal with these syndicates
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
the SAPS initiated a number of projects with a view to devising specific counter-measures for
specific types of organised crime (see Table 9).
Table 9:
Category of Organised Crime
Endangered Species
Diamonds and Gold
Commercial Crime
Taxi Violence
Highjackings of Freight
Armed Robbery
Gang-related Violence
Number of Projects
Shaw, M. 1998. “Organised Crime in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Occasional
Paper No. 28, Institute for Security Studies, January, pp. 1-2.
Thus, drug-trafficking remains one of the greatest challenges ever to confront the law
enforcement agencies in South Africa. This cannot be dealt a severe and decisive blow unless
there is co-operation with the countries across the South Atlantic, which are the main source
of drugs flooding the globe today.
There seems to be a correlation between the incidence of drug-related crime and the
geographical position of the Western Cape Province, in relation to the main sources of drugs,
namely, the South American countries. In South Africa, some of the biggest drug busts have
occurred on the West Coast. For instance, on 20 July 2001, 116 kg of cocaine, worth R250
million, was seized from a Maltese-registered cargo ship in Saldanha Bay. The ship was
bound for China from Argentina.98 Less than a month later (2 August 2001), another ship
carrying 155 kg of cocaine worth an estimated R325 million  the biggest quantity ever
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
seized in a single police operation  was searched by the South African Police Service. That
ship, Anangel Destiny, had left the Brazilian port, Porta da Madeira, on 17 July and was
bound for China. The search-and-seizure operation required that a special police task team be
constituted, comprising organised crime detectives, border police, the airwing, along with
police and navy divers, customs officials and a police sniffer dog.99 While the significance of
these seizures cannot be overemphasised, especially with regard to breaking the backbones of
transnational drug cartels, such seizures also have a serious side-effect on the general safety of
the community. Drugs busts usually result in limited supplies of drugs and therefore spark
gang wars as drug-lords have to fight for limited stock and space to sell. This has been
characteristic of the gang wars that have ravaged the Cape Flats in the Western Cape,
particularly during the period when the SAPS was making progress in combating illicit drugtrafficking.100
South Africa and the South American countries, especially those now constituting Mercosur,
still have much to do in the area of combating drug-trafficking. The drug industry, which is
reputed to be worth about R1,2-trillion or US$150-billion in global retail sales, cannot be
destroyed single-handedly.101 From a South African perspective, the situation is getting even
more dire as a result of trans-Atlantic drug-trafficking. For instance, as at July 2001, there
were 460 South Africans languishing in overseas jails, of whom 241 are related to drugtrafficking. South American countries alone hold about 110 (conservative figure) South
Africans on drug-related charges. In Brazil and Peru, there are 56 South Africans who are
suspected of being drug ‘mules’.102 Given these circumstances, it is crucial for countries on
both sides of the South Atlantic to synergise in their efforts to weed out drug-trafficking. The
US has a particular interest in these efforts as it remains the largest consumer of drugs,
originating from South America, shipped through South Africa and landing up in the US in
whatever form. Thus, in 2000 the US donated US$1,5-million to the South African drugfighting effort. The US government increased the figure to US$2,2-million in 2001. Efforts
of this nature are especially crucial as they have the potential to improve co-operation in other
areas such as combating piracy on the high seas, illegal fishing and increasing foreign direct
investment. These phenomena have a residual impact on security-related issues.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Following the discussion on the nature of socio-economic relations between South
Africa/SADC and the Mercosur countries, the question could be asked: What are the direct
security implications and how could the peace and security situation be improved on the basis
of strong socio-economic ties?
Firstly, the current popular neo-liberalist paradigm that increased economic growth enables
states to generate more funds for social spending, provides sufficient incentives for states to
This paradigm also emphasises the importance of the individual – hence
individual security. Welfarist states, such as the Scandinavian countries, hardly ever have
fundamental problems with their citizens, as social ills such as unemployment and lack of
access to basic human needs (particularly the physiological needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs) are adequately addressed. As the adage goes, ‘A hungry man knows no boundaries’;
therefore it is crucial that any national development strategy should incorporate the interests
of the neighbours. For instance, the US had to bring Mexico on board through NAFTA, and
the EU countries are currently grappling with ways and means of accommodating the
countries from the former East Bloc in order to bring them on par with the EU in terms of
economic development and democratic governance. Failure to do that would expose them to
a multitude of social security threats emanating from these quarters. In this regard Papp103
cites testimony provided by the seminal works of Quincy Wright and Ruth Leger Sivard.
Wright concluded in 1942 that poorer states have the proclivity to initiate war or resort to
violence. In this respect, Germany is the exception to rule in that it initiated war while it was
an economically advanced state that had strong economic ties with its neighbours. Similarly,
Sivard concluded that of the more than 120 instances of armed conflict in the period between
1955 and 1979, all but six involved developing countries. Aggression could be a response to
frustration and relative deprivation. Frustrated by poverty, poor countries may be tempted to
lash out at neighbours "to overcome a sense of impotence."104 Former US Secretary for
Defence, Robert S. McNamara observed in 1966 that "there is no question but that there is
evidence of a relationship between violence and economic backwardness."105
Poverty could also generate internal political instability which may either spill over into
neighbouring countries or cause an exodus of refugees, internally-displaced persons, or mass
emigration. Large influxes of illegal immigrants or economic refugees are symptomatic of
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
skewed economic development in a region. Unfettered illegal immigration poses a whole
range of challenges, including involvement in crime for survival because illegal immigrants
can hardly obtain proper permanent employment; straining the social service infrastructure
(health-care, educational facilities, shelter, etc) and threaten the environment (informal
settlements which mushroom outside the planning framework of the relevant authorities).
Thus, in dealing with illegal immigrants, as opposed to genuine verifiable asylum seekers in
South Africa, it is crucial that international norms in this regard are strongly adhered to and
complied with. Despite the draining effect of dealing with economic refugees, South Africa
has the responsibility of treating them humanely, especially given the fact that South Africa is
a prominent signatory to a multitude of human rights conventions and agreements. It is
against this background that South Africa has undertaken to contribute substantially towards
the development of the sub-region because it realises, as has already been mentioned, that it
cannot be an island of prosperity in a sea of poverty.
The main vehicle for addressing these social security challenges is through encouraging
foreign direct investment (FDI) and designing investor-friendly macro-economic policies.
Economic co-operation between states is best achieved where playing fields are level, and that
involved states make themselves mutually attractive to one another. With the increase in FDI,
the national income increases, which enables the government sufficient leeway to share it by
disbursing funds and supporting economically-viable labour-intensive regional projects which
have the capacity to improve the living standards of the citizens. This in turn stems the
propensity to emigrate while, at the same time, improves the security of the richer country’s
Secondly, through economic co-operation, individual states benefit by pooling their resources
to ensure that the interests of the group are properly articulated at international fora, which in
turn helps governments to deal with aspirations of the population properly. While states are
equal in terms of the Westphalian principles, the reality is that they are unequal in terms of the
influence or pressure they can bring to bear on any given issue. The importance of territorial
size in international relations has diminished in favour of economic size. To compensate for
deficiencies with regard to the crucial power bases of the state, namely, natural resource
endowment, size of GDP, technological advancement, military prowess and political
influence, states enter into co-operative arrangements. This enables relatively smaller states
to gain collectively from the international system what they could have lost individually. For
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
instance, South Africa in collaboration with Mercosur is currently attempting to influence the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) to adopt trade regulations that will be favourably biased
towards the developing world. Thus, states are able to pursue and secure national interests by
identifying like-minded allies. Besides basic challenges to social security, there is another
ominously powerful phenomenon called globalisation.
The post-Cold War international
scenario has catapulted regional Balkanisation and overlapping membership to various
international organisations as the main strategy to counter the side-effects of globalisation and
to avoid being subsumed by gigantic international role-players.
Thirdly, economic co-operation paves the way for co-operation in other more controversial
areas. In accordance with the adage, ‘States only have interests and no friends’, states are
inherently suspicious of one another’s motives. This explains the origins of the sense of
insecurity or security dilemma. Until there is general clarity on the actual intentions of
another state that is proposing closer co-operation, there always seems to be uncertainty as to
the extent that one party should trust the other. Although this was fairly easy to determine
during the Cold War because of the bipolar nature of the international system, the post-Cold
War era is even more complex. This stems from sensitivities such as the protection of
intellectual property rights and the eternal fear that vital skills and technologies might be
stolen through such diplomatic exchanges. There is general consensus that the main survival
strategy for maximally benefiting from the rewards of globalisation is developing specialised
skills, adding value to existing products, and identifying and captivating niche markets. This
is as much the responsibility of the private sector as it is of the government.
globalisation advocates the opening up of markets, it creates a situation of ‘unequal equality’
in the sense that it equally affords any entrepreneur a chance to sell products anywhere on the
globe, but the playing fields are not equal. Entrepreneurs from the developing countries do
not possess sufficient resources or skills to penetrate the markets of developed countries.
Thus, bilateral and multilateral arrangements are normally characterised by a gradual
incremental approach in terms of issues open for co-operation. Therefore, economic cooperation provides a first-level assessment for possible co-operation in other more sensitive
Fourthly, democratic states with strong economic ties tend to avoid war with each other as the
stakes are too high for both sides. As already indicated, Germany is an exception to the rule
because it initiated war while having strong economic ties with neighbours.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
investments take a long time to build and this normally requires extensive harmonisation of
macro-economic policies for mutual benefit. Mutual trust guides interaction between the cooperating states.
This is further strengthened by adhering to universally-recognised
democratic principles. Woodrow Wilson, the former US President, argued that the main
enemy of peace "was neither private ownership nor conflict between senses and reason, but
rather the absence of political democracy."106
For democracies, jealously-guarded
technologies are sometimes partially shared, as most co-operative arrangements usually
include clauses on skills transfer and technological exchange.
With the increase in the formation of regional economic blocs, inter-state wars are
increasingly becoming obsolete.
However, this applies largely to highly developed and
functional regional economic blocs such as the EU and NAFTA. For dysfunctional regional
blocs such as SADC, war is still very much part of the conflict-resolution mechanism. As
already indicated above, there is limited intra-regional trade and investment within SADC,
while within Mercosur the trend is impressive. Similarly, mutual investments between South
Africa and the Mercosur countries show an upward trend. Economic co-operation therefore
provides a sound mechanism for establishing a long-term protective shield for citizens in
countries that buy into the arrangement.
Lastly, increased economic co-operation should not be marred by such phenomena as drugtrafficking and piracy on the high seas. Drug-trafficking in particular is extremely damaging
as in most cases it relies on the existing channels of official trade and makes use of legitimate
trading mechanisms such as registered ships, scheduled flights and regular land-transport.
Even though efforts should be geared towards reducing supplies of drugs, this should be
complemented with corresponding efforts to reduce demand as well. Anything in between,
that is control of transportation modes or facilities, requires a drastic overhaul for all countries
involved. National legislation and efforts by international agencies, such as Interpol, can only
succeed if countries in the South Atlantic region harmonise policies and standard operating
procedures at airports, harbours and border areas.
Concurrently with the broadening of the concept of security, some military threats have
receded while certain non-military threats have increased. Non-military threats require a
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
concerted effort from both developed and developing nations alike as their effects transcend
national and regional borders. Most of these threats lie in the socio-economic arena. They
range from financial crises to resource depletion, and from extreme poverty to environmental
degradation. While these threats do not necessarily constitute threats to national security
individually, their combination could pose a potent threat.
South Africa’s relations with the Mercosur countries is rooted in the understanding that socioeconomic development and long-term economic prosperity which seek to address some of
these incipient threats, are crucial for national security. This chapter has demonstrated the
inextricable link between socio-economic issues and national security. It also showed how
socio-economic co-operation has become the common currency, which defines international
relations in the post-Cold War era.
The historical development of socio-economic relations between South Africa and the
Mercosur countries was discussed. This section revealed the chequered manner in which
these countries interacted with South Africa, especially prior to the latter’s transition to a
democratic dispensation in 1994.
During the sanctions era, countries now constituting
Mercosur either maintained low-profile relations with South Africa or simply abrogated the
UN-imposed economic and military sanctions. With the demise of the Soviet Union in the
early 1990s and the advent of democracy in South Africa, a whole new era was ushered in
regarding trans-Atlantic relations involving South Africa. Interaction between the countries
on both sides of the Atlantic increased and these were underpinned by high-level diplomatic
visits which culminated in the signing of various agreements and memoranda of
Being a regional giant, any agreement entered into by South Africa with any major extraregional country or organisation is bound to impact on SADC. A brief discussion of the
prospects for inter-regional co-operation between Mercosur and SADC was presented. Huge
differences were highlighted between Mercosur and SADC, especially on the level of
development and the nature of internal dynamics dominating the two regional organisations.
While both organisations concur that broad security for their nationals could be effected
through socio-economic development, there are clear indications that SADC still has much to
learn from such organisations as Mercosur and ASEAN, as the latter two organisations largely
consist of developing countries, as is the case with SADC.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Applying the same approach as with regard to socio-economic co-operation, the next chapter
deals with military relations between South Africa and the Mercosur countries. Military
interaction between states usually demonstrate a higher level of mutual trust and commitment
to the economic and political ideals. Being the executive arms of governments, the military
occupy a unique position in international relations. An attempt will be made to demonstrate
that, as much as the military dimension of security has declined as a general global trend, it is
still being pursued quite vigorously by some states. The achievements attained in the socioeconomic arena require that they be buttressed by a credible capacity to secure them
militarily, if necessary.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Sperling, J. and Kirchner, E. 1998. “Economic Security and the Problem of Cooperation in post-Cold
War Europe.” Review of International Studies, Vol. 24, No.2, p. 221. See also Muñoz, H. "The
Dominant Themes in Latin American Foreign Relations: An Introduction", in Muñoz, H. and Tulchin,
J.S. (eds.) 1996. Latin American Nations in World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 1-2.
Barber, J. “Regional Co-operation and Integration: South Africa, the Southern African Develoment
Community (SADC) and Mercado Comun del Sur (Mercosur)”, in Guimarães, S.P. (ed.) 1996. South
Africa and Brazil: Risks and Opportunities in the Turmoil of Globalisation.
Rio de Janeiro:
International Relations Research Institute, p. 333.
Viejobueno, S.A.M. 1995. Mercosur: A Decisive Step Towards South American Economic Revival.
Occasional Paper No. 10, Pretoria, November, Unisa Centre for Latin American Studies, pp. 6-7.
Ibid, pp. 7-8.
Heine, J. 1995. "South-South Relations After the Cold War". A presentation made by the Ambassador
of Chile to the Foreign Affairs Committee, National Assembly, South African Parliament. Cape Town, 7
June 1995.
Leysens, A. 1992(a). "The Political Economy of South Africa's Relations with Latin America: Past
Developments and Prospects for Future Co-operation within the context of South Africa." Unisa Latin
American Report, Vol. 8, No. 1, March, pp. 38-39. See also Leysens, A. 1992(b). "South Africa's
Relations with Latin America (1966 - 1988)". Occasional Paper, No. 6. Pretoria: Unisa Centre for Latin
American Studies, Pretoria, November, p. 4.
Whittaker, D.J. 1995. United Nations in Action. London: UCL Press, pp. 166-167.
Republic of South Africa. 1965. Debates of the House of Assembly (Hansard), Vol. 13, 12 March,
column, 2737.
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1968. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 22, 22 Maart, kolom
Gamba-Stonehouse, V. 1989. Strategy in the Southern Oceans: A South American View. London:
Pinter Publishers, p. 93.
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1966. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 16, 25 Januarie, kolom
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1968. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 24, 13 Februarie, kolom
Leysens, A. 1992(a). op cit, p. 39.
Ibid, pp. 44-45.
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1968. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 22, 22 Maart, kolom
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1968. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 23, 27 Maart, kolom
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1968. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 23, 2 April, kolom
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1971. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 32, 12 Maart, kolom
Ibid, kolom 2692.
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1968. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 23, 2 April, kolom
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1975. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 58, 14 Februarie, kolom
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1976. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 64, 22 Maart, kolom 629.
Address by President Nelson Mandela at the Mercosur Heads of State Summit, Ushuaia, 24 July 1998.
Information provided by the Office of the President, Pretoria.
Golςalves, G.B. 1999. “Mercosur Today: Choices and Challenges”, in Mills, G. and Mutschler, C.
(eds.) Exploring South-South Dialogue: Mercosur in Latin America & SADC in Southern Africa.
Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), p. 28.
The Star (Johannesburg), 24 January 2000.
Beeld, 21 March 2000. See also The Star (Johannesburg), 9 June 2000.
Address by President Thabo Mbeki at the Mercosur Summit, Brazil, 15 December 2000. Information
provided by the Office of the Presidency, Pretoria.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1992. "The Forgotten Dimension: South African/Latin American Relations Past
and Present." Unisa Latin American Report, Vol. 8, No. 2, September, pp. 5-6.
Ibid, p. 5.
Tulchin, J.S. op cit, p. 165.
Leysens, A. 1992(b), op cit, p. 46.
The Star (Johannesburg), 24 July 1998.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1992, op cit, p. 9.
Leysens, A. 1992(b), op cit, p. 49.
Ibid. p. 50.
Waisman, C.H. "Argentina: Capitalism and Democracy", in Diamond, L. et. al. (eds.) 1999. Democracy
in Developing Countries: Latin America, Second Edition. London: Lynner Rienner Publishers, p. 121.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1999(a). “President Mandela Strengthens Relations: State Visit to Brazil and
Argentina, and Address to the Mercosur Summit at Ushuaia”. Unisa Latin American Report, Vol. 15,
No. 1, p. 29.
Hakim, P. 1996. “Good News From Paraguay: A Coup d’Etat Falls Flat.” Christian Science Monitor,
Boston, 30 May, p. 19. See also Valenzuela, A. 1997. “Paraguay: The Coup That Didn’t Happen.”
Journal of Democracy, No. 8.1, pp. 43-55.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1999(a). op cit, p. 29.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Ibid, p. 28. See also The Star (Johannesburg), 24 July 1998.
Ibid, p. 29.
Banks, A.S., Day, A.J. and Muller, T.C. (eds.) 1997. Political Handbook of the World: 1997. New
York: CSA Publications, pp. 104-106, 766-771.
Business Day (Johannesburg), 20 July 1998.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1999(b). "Consolidating Ties Between Brazil and South Africa: An Interview
with Ivan Cannabrava." Unisa Latin American Report, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 49. See also Business Day
(Johannesburg), 20 July 1998.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1992. op cit, p. 5.
Ibid, p. 6.
Pen, M. "Candomblé: A Glimpse at Brazil's African Roots, October, 22, 2000.
Republic of South Africa. National Archives. PM 37/2/20. Pretoria.
Republic of South Africa. National Archives. PM 4/2/46. Pretoria.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1992. op cit, p. 7.
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1968. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 22, 22 Maart, kolom
Muñoz, H. op cit, p. 2.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1992, op cit. p. 7.
Ibid, pp. 7-8.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1999. "Consolidating Ties Between Brazil and South Africa: An Interview with
Ivan Cannabrava." op cit, p. 50.
Van Bleck, C. 1996. "SA – Brazil: A New Era of Friendship". SA Now, Vol. 1, No. 10, November,
p. 34.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1995. "Brazil's New Role in South and Southern Africa: An Interview with Luiz
Felipe Lampreia." Unisa Latin American Report, Vol 11, No. 2, p. 52.
Van Bleck, C., op cit, pp. 31-32.
“Profile of Bilateral Relations: Federative Republic of Brazil”.
brazil.htm. See also Business Day (Johannesburg), 20 July 1998.
Ibid. for-relations/bilateral/ brazil.htm.
Ibid. for-relations/bilateral/ brazil.htm.
Joint Statement by President Mbeki of South Africa and President Fernando Herique Cardoso of Brazil,
13 December 2000. Office of the President.
The Star (Johannesburg), 11 December 2000.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1992. op cit, p. 8.
Republiek van Suid Afrika. 1975. Debatte Van die Volksraad (Hansard), Deel 58, 11 Februarie, kolom
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1992, op cit, p. 11.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
Ibid, pp. 9-10.
Roelofse-Campbell, Z. 1995. “Chilean Minister of the Economy Visits South Africa.” Unisa Latin
American Report, Vol. 11, No. 1, January – June, p. 73.
Address by President Nelson Mandela at the state banquet in honour of President Eduardo Frei of the
Republic of Chile, Pretoria, 12 November 1998.
Bouzas, R. 1999. “Mercosur’s External Trade Negotiations: Dealing with a Congested Agenda”, in
Roett, R. (ed.) Mercosur: Regional Integration, World Markets. London: Lynne Reinner Publishers,
p. 84.
Saraiva, J.F. 1997. “A Comparative Analysis of the Foreign Policies of South Africa and Brazil.” Unisa
Latin American Report, Vol. 13, No. 2, July – December, p. 33.
Cleary, S. 1998. op cit, p. 56.
Article 24 of the SADC Treaty signed in Windhoek, 17 August 1992. See also Articles 8 and 20 of the
Treaty of Asunción, op cit.
The Star (Johannesburg), 30 October 1998.
Barber, J. op cit, p. 346.
Finance Week, 7 April 2000.
Marckwald, R.A. “Mercosur-SADC: Prospects for a South-South Cooperation”, in Guimarães, S.P. (ed.)
op cit, p.500.
Finansies & Tegniek. 8 October 1999.
Cape Times (Cape Town), 29 October 1998.
Marckwald, R.A. op cit, pp. 508-510.
Sunday Independent (Johannesburg), 11 March 1997.
Campbell, K. 2000. “Good Time for South-South Trade Bridges.” Engineering News, Vol. 20, 21-27
April, p. 9. See also Business Day (Johannesburg), 25 April 2000.
Die Burger (Cape Town), 30 October 1998.
Information provided by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), SADC Desk, on 3
October 2001.
Thahane, T. and Van der Merwe, E. “Mercosur and SADC: Investment and Trade Linkages”, in Mills, G.
& Mutschler, C. (eds.) op cit, p. 110.
South African Police Service Organised Crime Unit. Anti-Organised Crime Measures, August 1997.
Shaw, M. 1998. “Organised Crime in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Occasional Paper No. 28, Institute
for Security Studies, Pretoria, January, pp. 1-2.
Ibid, p. 2. See also Cape Argus (Cape Town), 18 June 2001.
Leggett, T.
“Drugs in South Africa: The Latest Trends”, in Institute for Security Studies.
Nedbank ISS Crime Index, Vol. 3, No. 5, September – October. See also Cape Argus (Cape Town), 18
June 2001.
Shaw, M. op cit, p. 3.
SAPA. “Interpol to Investigate Cape Cocaine Bust”. (21 July 2001)
99 (2 August 2001).
Cape Argus (Cape Town), 31 May 2001.
University of Pretoria etd – Khanyile, M B (2003)
SAPA. “Legalise Drugs, says The Economist”. (26 July 2001)
Cape Times (Cape Town), 27 July 2001. See also (29 July 2001).
Papp, D.S. 1992. Contemporary International Relations: Frameworks for Understanding, Third
Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, pp. 562-563.
Ibid, p. 562.
Kegley, C.W. & Wittkopf, E.R. 1993. World Politics: Trends and Transformation, Fourth Edition.
New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 444.
Papp, D.S. op cit, p. 563.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF