Recent media commentary on South Africa’s participation in a joint naval exercise with China, Russia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates has been marked by a familiar charge: that Pretoria has compromised its professed non-aligned stance and, in doing so, damaged the credibility of its foreign policy. Some critics have gone further, implying that South Africa has crossed an ideological and moral red line simply by engaging in defence cooperation outside the orbit of Western powers.
This line of argument is not only flawed; it rests on a deeply impoverished understanding of non-alignment, sovereignty and the realities of an international system that is undergoing profound structural change.
At the most basic level, South Africa is a sovereign state. Like all sovereign states, it possesses the legal and political right to determine its own defence relationships and international partnerships. That right is not conditional on the approval of external actors, nor is it circumscribed by the preferences of global powers that continue to view the world through the lens of bloc politics. To suggest otherwise is to deny South Africa the very agency that non-alignment seeks to preserve.
Non-alignment has never meant abstention from international engagement. Historically, the Non-Aligned Movement emerged not as a doctrine of passivity, but as an assertion of strategic autonomy by states unwilling to subordinate their interests to Cold War power blocs. Its founding principle was independence of judgment the freedom to engage broadly, selectively and pragmatically in pursuit of national interests. Reducing non-alignment to a prohibition on cooperation with certain countries, while treating engagement with others as unproblematic, turns the concept on its head.
Those questioning South Africa’s credibility often do so selectively. Joint exercises with Western navies, participation in US-led training initiatives, or defence cooperation with NATO-aligned states are rarely framed as evidence of alignment or ideological drift. Yet when similar cooperation occurs with non-Western partners, it is suddenly cast as a geopolitical transgression. This asymmetry reveals less about South Africa’s foreign policy than about the assumptions of its critics.
What is also missing from much of the criticism is an appreciation of the broader geopolitical context particularly the growing influence of BRICS and the gradual emergence of a more multipolar world order. South Africa is not operating in a geopolitical vacuum. It is a member of a grouping that now represents a significant share of the world’s population, economic output and future growth. BRICS has expanded its membership, deepened institutional cooperation, and positioned itself as a platform for coordination among states that seek greater voice and autonomy in global affairs.
Engagement with BRICS partners, including in the defence and security domain, is therefore not an aberration but a logical extension of South Africa’s long-standing commitment to South-South cooperation and multilateralism. As global power diffuses and new centres of influence emerge, it would be strategically negligent for South Africa to confine its partnerships to a shrinking subset of traditional powers. Strategic autonomy in a multipolar world requires diversified relationships political, economic and security-related.
South Africa’s defence engagements must also be understood in their proper legal context. Joint military exercises are a routine and lawful feature of international relations. They do not constitute alliances, nor do they signal endorsement of the domestic or foreign policies of participating states. Under international law, including the UN Charter and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, states are entitled to conduct military cooperation and exercises in international waters or within their territorial jurisdiction, provided they comply with established norms. There is nothing inherently provocative or illegitimate about such activities.
Nor should participation in a multilateral exercise be conflated with geopolitical allegiance. In an increasingly interconnected and competitive world, states routinely engage across political and ideological lines. India, often cited as a model of strategic autonomy, conducts exercises with the United States while maintaining deep defence ties with Russia and expanding cooperation within BRICS. Few would argue that this renders India’s non-alignment meaningless. Why, then, should South Africa be held to a narrower and more restrictive standard?
Critics often frame their objections in moral terms, suggesting that association with certain countries compromises South Africa’s values. This argument, however, is selectively applied and strategically convenient. International relations are replete with partnerships that transcend political differences, particularly in the security domain. The United States itself conducts military exercises and arms sales with states whose human rights records it openly criticises and often with far less public introspection than is demanded of South Africa.
There is also an uncomfortable subtext to much of the criticism: the assumption that external powers have a mandate to prescribe or police South Africa’s strategic choices. This expectation is neither realistic nor appropriate in a world no longer defined by unipolar dominance. South Africa is not a proxy, a client state or a geopolitical buffer to be managed by others. Its foreign policy is shaped by its own history, constitutional values and national interests including the pursuit of peace, development and a more equitable global order.
BRICS’ growing influence underscores this reality. As institutions dominated by the Global North struggle with legitimacy and reform, alternative platforms are gaining traction. Participation in these spaces inevitably entails deeper interaction, coordination and trust among members. Defence cooperation, including naval exercises, is one of many tools states use to build interoperability, share expertise and safeguard common interests such as maritime security and trade routes.
It is also worth recalling South Africa’s own historical experience. During the struggle against apartheid, many of the countries now portrayed as problematic partners provided critical political, diplomatic and material support when Western governments were ambivalent or openly hostile. This history does not dictate present-day policy, but it does inform a foreign policy tradition that values independence, solidarity and resistance to external pressure.
None of this is to suggest that South Africa’s foreign policy should be uncritical or indifferent to global norms. Strategic autonomy does not preclude principled engagement, nor does it absolve the state from articulating and defending its positions clearly. But credibility in foreign policy is not measured by conformity. It is measured by consistency, coherence and the ability to act in accordance with one’s stated principles including the principle that no external power has veto authority over sovereign decisions.
The real danger lies not in South Africa exercising its right to engage broadly in a changing world, but in allowing a narrow and outdated conception of alignment to dictate its choices. Non-alignment, properly understood, is not about sitting on the fence or avoiding complexity. It is about navigating complexity with agency and confidence.
South Africa’s participation in a joint naval exercise should therefore be seen for what it is: a legitimate exercise of sovereignty in a contested, multipolar world where BRICS and other emerging formations are reshaping global power. To frame it as a betrayal of non-alignment is to misunderstand both the concept and the country.
* Nonhlanhla Ndlovu, Freelancer and Independent Writer.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of or Independent Media.
