Well, I will take questions towards the end of my speech. Thank you. I therefore hope that the hon member comes back to the real South Africa.
In characterising the international situation, the ANC in its strategy and tactics of 1997 said the following:
The ANC should aim to contribute to the restructuring of the international relations in the interest of the poor and this statement remains relevant as ever ...
It continued, and I quote -
... We are moved in this regard by the conviction that, as long as injustice, poverty and conflict exist anywhere on the globe, so long as humanity finds within itself individuals, movements and governments to co- operate in their eradication of such poverty, the ANC is proud to be part of these international forces.
The topic as tabled has four aspects to it and I will focus mainly on the hegemonic power, whether South Africa should become one or not in the interest of the region.
What is hegemonic power? I tried to look up what it could be. It is described as the use of power, usually by those controlling the Meta- or masternarrative against the other. Other explanations are that hegemony is a coercive control manifested through direct force or its threat. It is also about power, ideology, influence and knowledge, dominance of the ideas and coercion and cultural dominance. "Hegemonic" describes the policies of states, which control or bully those within their sphere of influence. Hegemonic power - the power of hegemony - is primarily through coercion and consent.
These are but a few descriptions and definitions on hegemony and hegemonic power. I raise all these points to later argue and respond to the question raised, whether we should become a hegemonic power in the region or not. Having that in mind, let us look at hegemonic behaviour and tendencies.
First- and fundamentally, hegemony is about raw, hard power. Militarily, hegemonic capabilities are such that no other state has the wherewithal, hegemony is about raw hard power. Militarily, hegemonic capabilities are such that no other state has, the wherewithal, to put up a serous fight against it. Economically, hegemony occupies a position of economic supremacy in the international system and enjoys a preponderance of material resources and a key factor driving hegemonic expansion.
Secondly, hegemony is about the dominant power ambitions - the purpose for which it is to use its power. Hegemony acts self-interestedly to create a stable international order that will safeguard its security and its economic and ideological interests only.
Thirdly, hegemony is about polarity, because of its overwhelming advantages in relative military and economic power. Hegemony is the only great power in the international system, which is, therefore by definition unipolar.
Fourthly, hegemony is about will. Not only must a hegemony possess overwhelming power, it must purposefully exercise that power to impose order on the international system. When it comes to grand strategy, a hegemony practices the adage, "if you have got it, flaunt it" or as the USA said during the Iraq invasion, "coalition of the willing" or "You are either with us or against us".
The philosophy and fundamentals concerning hegemony are about structural change, because if one state achieves hegemony, the system ceases to be anarchic and becomes hierarchic. Of course, as Robert Gilpin has noted:
No state has complete control over an international system, and thus hegemony is a relative, not an absolute concept.
When a great power attains hegemony, as for example, as the USA did in Western Europe after World War II, it means that the system is more hierarchic - and less anarchic - than it would be in the absence of hegemonic power.
Implicit in Gilpin's observation that hegemony is a relative concept is a subtle but important although the USA is not omnipotent. Although the US is the most powerful international actor today since imperial Rome, there clearly are limits to its ability to shape international outcomes.
The USA has been unable to suppress the insurgency in Iraq, just as it did not prevail in the Vietnam War and unable to compel either North Korea or Iran to halt their nuclear programmes. Does this mean the US is not an extra regional or global hegemony after all? Clearly not - at least not - if we understand what power is and what it is not. As Kenneth Waltz has pointed out: "Power does not mean the ability to get one's way all the time."
Material resources never translate fully into desired outcomes - a point acknowledged by military strategists that when they observe that the enemy has a vote in determining the degree to which one's own strategic goal will be realised. Rather, a state is powerful if it gets its way most of the time than others do, precisely because the US is an extra regional hegemony - a marked asymmetry of influence of favours it. In international politics, the US does not get all that it wants all the time. But, it gets most of what it wants an awful lot of time and it affects other states far more than states affect it.
Having defined in a very scientific and philosophical argument about what hegemony is, we in the ANC, reject any notion or thinking that South Africa is a hegemony. Hence, each time in international forums, we do stand and argue against insinuations, such as big brother, the power of the South, the regional power, a bully or imperialist power of Africa, which unfortunately are being ascribed without care and consideration.
One is a hegemony only if one uses the power of one's economy, the relative military power and if one coerces, forces and dominates, imposes and controls in such a way that one becomes a unilateralist. That is not the agenda or parts of any of our foreign policies in this country and not in the democratic South Africa.
Yes, probably under apartheid we saw such of hegemony, bombing neighbours, in Lesotho, Botswana, Mozambique, and in Zambia under the guise of fighting the so-called terrorists or stopping the expansion functions of the communists. It forced others into agreements, such as the Nkomati Accord and or the Mbabane Agreements, sponsoring and supporting civil wars in Mozambique and Angola. Apartheid South Africa was a bully and hegemonic power in the region. At that point, if one would ask the question whether South Africa should be called a hegemonic state, I would have agreed but not this democratic South Africa.
In the democratic South Africa values and principles of international co- operations are underpinned by multilateralism in international affairs and proactive engagement in conflict management. Multilateralism is a concept of foreign policy and is therefore based on collaboration as opposed to competition.
Countries that pursue multilateral foreign policies avoid acting unilaterally and are generally opposed to foreign policies based on dominance. They tend to preoccupy themselves with issues such as the reform of international institutions, greater collaboration between North and South and a South-South to south co-operation. Theirs is a vision of an inclusive- based on international system that is not discriminatory and where compromise is the norm. South Africa, our country, can safely be placed within that category of countries.
At the same time, in the field of conflict management, which is the other pillar of South Africa's Foreign policy, the country is becoming increasingly bold and assertive. Despite our commitment to acting within a framework of multilateralism, we have not shied away from taking the lead in offering dynamic and pragmatic solutions to some of the most intractable conflicts on the continent.
What is happening in the Doha Round of negotiations, in the G20 countries and in the EPA's negotiations, as alluded to by my colleagues, is that South Africa participates and contributes to those collectives and we are not bullying anybody. We contribute ideas for solutions and we look at the benefits of the collectives that benefit everybody.
Responding to the question whether South Africa become a hegemonic power in the interest of the region? Our response is no. It cannot be, it shall not be, and shall never be, but it will remain a regional player within a collaborative system of international agreements.
We must as a regional player enable our neighbours and the continent to grow their economies, assist them to address the challenges that they are facing, like the infrastructure, grow our own regional market as SADC within the regional economic communities' programme. I hope therefore, that the hon Ben Skosana will agree with that approach.
Noting also that our economy has expanded into the region and the continent, our strength and capacity gives us advantages as far as manufacturing is concerned. However, we have an obligation in the region to see to it that other member states produce goods that can also find their way into our markets and trade in South Africa. We also want to see increase in trade amongst member states within the region.
In conclusion, it is not in the interest of South Africa to become a hegemonic power. I think I have described what hegemonic power is and what is a hegemony. It is a senseless and heartless type of an activity or behaviour. We do not want to become that. We can still pursue our national interests through multilateral as the order of the new world that we are striving to build. As the ANC we clearly state that we want a just and equitable world order and that, just and equitable world order is possible. And, we must strive to build it. Amandla! [Applause.]