From military overreach in Iran to government of national unity fractures at home, South Africa’s foreign policy is sending dangerous mixed signals. Pretoria’s diplomatic machinery seems to be faltering when coherence matters most, writes Zeenat Adam.
South Africa is at a critical juncture in its foreign policy. As the country navigates global realignments, internal fractures are beginning to project disunity to the world at precisely the time when coherence and credibility are most needed.
Recent developments in Pretoria have exposed troubling gaps in the management of our diplomacy, the cohesion of our government of national unity (GNU), and the discipline of our security cluster.
Military overreach and the Iran visit
During an unauthorised visit to Tehran in August 2025, SANDF chief, General Rudzani Maphwanya made political remarks signalling alignment with Iran, invoking “common goals” that go far beyond the remit of military-to-military engagement.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) precipitously distanced itself from his comments, emphasising that they do not reflect official government policy. The Presidency, too, has signalled that corrective steps will be taken, while Parliament’s defence and international relations committees have called the ministers to account.
This was more than a diplomatic faux pas.
It reflects a lack of cohesion in the security cluster, where the military, intelligence and foreign policy machinery are pulling in different directions.
If such insubordination is not dealt with firmly, it risks eroding the principle of civilian oversight of the armed forces — a cornerstone of South Africa’s democratic order.
Left unchecked, it could invite fissures that destabilise the state and embolden elements within the military to act autonomously in ways that undermine elected leadership. President Cyril Ramaphosa, as commander-in-chief, cannot afford equivocation; decisive discipline is necessary to safeguard democratic norms.
The DA’s parallel foreign policy
At the same time, cracks are emerging within the GNU.
The DA, while formally a junior partner in government, has begun projecting its own foreign policy positions, at times in conflict with official pronouncements. Its push to distance South Africa from historic solidarities in the Global South and its tendency to lean into Western-aligned positions risk creating the perception of a “dual-track” foreign policy.
READ | US seeks clarity on SA’s Iran stance, expressing ‘great concern’ following Maphwanya trip
This not only reveals a lack of consolidation within the coalition but also presents an image of a fragmented South Africa to international partners. For foreign capitals, uncertainty about who speaks for Pretoria diminishes the credibility of our diplomacy. The GNU’s internal contradictions are bleeding into foreign policy, where coherence should be indispensable.
Dirco’s crisis of capacity
Compounding these political fractures are deep organisational weaknesses at Dirco itself.
Of South Africa’s 169 foreign missions, nearly 29% are without heads of mission, a vacancy rate that speaks to chronic mismanagement. Fiscal constraints have further hollowed out capacity, leaving missions under-resourced and diplomats unable to perform even the basics of representation.
The department is weighed down by a geriatric senior management corps, bloated political appointees and the absence of a clearly defined career path for aspiring diplomats.
READ | Dirco trying to recover more than R1m from officials for damages to foreign rentals
In this climate, talent is stifled, morale eroded and institutional memory squandered. South Africa’s global engagements cannot be effective if the very machinery of diplomacy is incapacitated. The state cannot project strength abroad while its foreign service is in administrative disrepair. While this is a chronic malaise across government, it has particularly detrimental consequences in the management of foreign relations.
Multilateral reform
South Africa’s unwavering commitment to multilateralism has long been framed as a moral anchor of its foreign policy.
Yet the ongoing genocide in Gaza has exposed the persistent defects of the international system. The UN Security Council remains paralysed by veto powers, selective enforcement of international law, and entrenched hierarchies that privilege Western interests. Global institutions, once heralded as mechanisms for justice, are increasingly revealed as instruments that perpetuate structural inequality and safeguard the privileges of powerful states.
This is not an abstract critique. South Africa’s principled interventions from championing Palestinian rights to leading the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case on Gaza reveal both the necessity and the limits of moral diplomacy.
While Pretoria’s engagement reflects courage and principle, it also underscores the constraints imposed by a multilateral architecture resistant to change.
If multilateralism is to remain credible, South Africa must champion revolutionary reform. Incremental tweaks are insufficient; a new order is required where the Global South has genuine decision-making power, where the rule of law is consistently applied, and where justice is not contingent on the strategic interests of the powerful.
South Africa’s integrity depends on its willingness to push these boundaries, not merely to operate within structures designed to marginalise it.
Africa first
South Africa’s foreign policy rhetoric often gestures to “Africa first,” yet this principle requires more than symbolic invocations.
The continent is home to the fastest-growing populations, vast mineral and energy resources, and one of the last untapped consumer markets of scale. Rather than defaulting to traditional European and American markets, Pretoria should leverage Africa’s collective weight as an alternative pole of growth and influence.
This requires more cohesive continental cooperation. Africa’s states must forge formidable strategic alliances capable of redefining the continent’s projection on the world stage.
READ | Dangor on US talks: They didn't bring up Iran, ICJ
No longer subservient or submissive to former colonial masters, Africa must insist on shaping the rules of engagement in trade, technology and diplomacy. South Africa has both the responsibility and opportunity to lead but it can only do so if it is sufficiently capacitated to and if it is able to implement and embody the foreign policy ideals it purports to honour.
Actions over speeches
The crises of coherence in South Africa’s foreign policy, from military overreach to coalition discord and diplomatic mismanagement, are not isolated lapses.
Together, they point to a fragile state of leadership at a moment the world demands clarity.
South Africa cannot project itself as a credible voice for justice, reform, and Africa’s renaissance while projecting disunity, incapacity and indecision at home.
The moment calls for unity, discipline, cohesion and vision. Civilian diplomacy must remain paramount over militarisation. Dirco must undergo urgent renewal to professionalise its ranks, shed patronage and invest in the next generation of diplomats. The GNU must speak with one voice, and South Africa’s commitment to multilateralism must evolve from rhetorical loyalty in multilateral and continental structures to revolutionary reform.
The upcoming G20 Summit presents South Africa with an opportunity to reclaim and reassert leadership on the global stage, shaping agendas that reflect African priorities and the interests of the Global South. Yet this potential is tempered by significant challenges, particularly if the US, as the next host, remains obstreperous or disengaged.
In the end, the measure of South Africa’s foreign policy will not be the eloquence of its speeches or hosting of international summits, but the unassailability of its actions in a fractured world.
- Zeenat Adam is a political analyst and formerly served as a senior diplomat in the South African foreign service.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
