INTRODUCTION We have chosen South Africas foreign policy entitled Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu and

Zimbabwes Foreign Policy. R. C Good defines foreign polic y as domestic policy carried beyond the boundaries of the state (Matthews, 1981:34 ). The South African foreign policy is centered around the concept of Ubuntu, which literally means humanity. The white paper on the Diplomacy of Ubuntu is centere d on affirm(ing) our humanity when we affirm the humanity of others (White Paper o n South Africas Foreign Policy, 2011:4). It is a concept that views personal iden tification as being dependent on communal relations, so it is focused on gains f or everyone involved, although some obviously end up gaining more than others. Zimbabwes foreign policy aims at safeguarding and enhancing the countrys security and prestige (Chigora, 2006:62). The policy focuses more on supporting liberati on movements and protecting national sovereignty, that is rejecting all forms of breaches to its right to self determination (www.zimfa.gov.zw). It is directed at Africa, but it also looks to the East rather than the West. The Zimbambwean f oreign policy, as with that of any other country, is an extension of its domesti c policy since it is the supreme national interest that drives the conception of a countrys foreign policy. BACKGROUND After the end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa sought to and succeeded in bec oming the leading power in Africa in terms of development. It is the most develo ped country in Africa and has assumed a leading role in terms of negotiationg co nflict resolution and promoting South- South solidarity. After having ended an e ra of racial segregation and discrimination, South Africa has committed itself t o ending all forms of racism, discrmination and promoting liberty and peace alon g with democratic organs of self-government (White Paper on South Africas Foreign P olicy, 2011:10). Post-independent Zimbabwe has had a fairly consistent foreign policy, with the c onstant need for foreign aid which was supplied by countries of the West such as Britain, Canada as well as Nordic contries. The USA donated $225 million over t hree years to the Zimbabwe on Reconstruction and Development (ZIMCORD) which was founded in 1981 (Chigora,2009:93). The 21st century foreign policy of Zimbabwe finds it at loggerheads with the de mocratic countries of the West after government moves to take land from the whit es in Zimbabwe and the post-election violence of 2008. Chigora and Dewa (2009) r emark on the fact that the moves undertaken by the Zimbabwean government were se en as a challenge to policies of the rich nations of the and a refusal to conduct its economy according to the dictates of the World Bank. This had Zimbabwes membe rship at the IMF suspended, which means that its membership to the World Bank is automatically revoked. Also, aid from Nordic countries which provided some much - needed social services was stopped (Chigora, 2009:93). Zimbabwes foreign policy is now directed at Africa and the East. POLICY ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION This part of the paper will first deal with a comparison of the two foreign pol icies, then analyze and evaluate the extent to which they were formulated in res ponse to internal and external demands or problems as well as their sustainabili ty. A COMPARISON OF UBUNTU DIPLOMACY AND ZIMBABWES FOREIGN POLICY The Zimbabwean foreign policy and the South African foreign policy focus on Sou th- South solidarity. However, Ubuntu focuses more on Africa, with South Africa promoting South- South cooperation through international organizations such as B RICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), while Zimbabwe focuses on re lations with countries from East Asia such as Iran, China and Malaysia (Chigora, 2009:95). Also, economic development is a major part of both policies, but the paths to i ts achievement are divergent. South Africa is heading towards investment and coo

peration where it is seeking to increase its investments in Africa as well as ot her countries substantially. Zimbabwe on the other hand seeks to attract investo rs into the country, so it is playing a much less active role in investing than South Africa is. The Diplomacy of Ubuntu stems from a need to unite the multiracial peoples in S outh Africa (blacks, whites, coloreds and others) and so the foreign policy seek s to promote cooperation over competition and collaboration over confrontation (Wh ite Paper on South Africas Foreign Policy, 2011:10). Zimbabwes foreign policy, on the other hand is a result of problems at home, thus the need to look to the Eas t and ignore the West. Furthermore, South Africas foreign policy seeks to make the country a major play er in African and global affairs through actively seeking to provide peaceful so lutions to regional and global problems through its position in organisations su ch as the UN and AU. South Africa recognizes that it has gotten its global statu s due it positioning in Africa and so wishes to continue adding to its status th rough its role as peacemaker in Africa as well as in the rest of the world. Zimb abwe is mostly introverted as it seeks to stabilize its internal affairs after t he 2008 post-electoral tensions and the resulting fallout with countries of the West. The country needs to concentrate its efforts and resources on rebuilding i ts economy from the brink of total collapse as well as stabilizing its currency after having to use the US dollar. The Diplomacy of Ubuntu is centered in democracy while the same can hardly be s aid for Zimbabwe. The aspect of humanity seems to be lacking in the policy. The Mugabe regime is not preoccupied with democracy, since the break of relations be tween Zimbabwe and the West was caused by the breach of the democratic principle of free and fair elections and it is because of this that Zimbabwe has sought t o establish strong ties with Asian countries that do not put democracy and human rights at the centre of their foreign relations. ANALYSIS In analyzing the policies, we will look at factors such as the internal and exte rnal demands or problems which include the actors involved in the decision-makin g process, and the conditions within and without the country. As Rangarirai note d, a states foreign policy is not simply about power and resources; these may be i mportant, but foregn policy also includes history, memory, values, structures, a nd legacies (Rangarirai, 2011:3). Zimbabwes foreign policy is a result of various and complex factors, includng Pre sident Mugabes defiance of the dictates of the West and the resulting economic cr isis as donors stopped virtually all aid to Zimbabwe. Mugabe played a significan t role in the formulation of the policy; foreign policy formulation in Zimbabwe is a right of the president, and he is the plays the definitive role of setting the parameters (www.zimfa.gov.zw). We can see how aspects of the foreign policy are geared towards protecting his position and by extension the country from wha t he probably perceives to be undue and intolerable Western involvement in Zimba bwean domestic affairs. The demands that he step down and let Tvangrai take over the running of the cou ntry worsened their relations. Add to that Zimbabwe being sanctioned by the US, UK, Canada and the European Union (EU) along as having its membership to the IM F suspended only worsened relations (Chigora, 2006:61). Zimbabwean embassies in these countries were closed and the diplomatic missions ended abruplty by the re ceiving states. Therefore Mugabe turned to the East, which has more relaxed demo cratic values, especially China, which has no foreign policy on Human Rights to speak of. Countries like China and Iran are harldy considered to be the most dem ocratic countires in their, never mind in the world. Therefore the shift from Ea st to West was partly in defiance to the Werstern demands for democracy in Zimba bwe and for Mugabe to step down and partly due to the need for other sources of foreign aid. After the ceasation of aid into Zimbabwe from Western countries such as the US A, UK, and other Nordic countries, the country then sought to get other sources of the aid that is crucial to Zimbabwes survival. Rangarirai gives a clear pictur

e of Zimbabwes Look East policy, which is about a newer, breoader angagements with countries in Asia. The country turned to Beijing due to its no-strings-attached ap proach to doing business worldwide (Rangarirai, 2011:5). Zimbabwe had experienced hyperinflation, which hit 11.2 million per cent by Augu st 2008 and the country had to abandon using the Zimbabwean dollar when prices g ot too high, like a sheet of toilet paper costing $417 in a supermarket (www.cnn .com, www.nytimes.com ). There was an urgent need for funds to alleviate the des perate situation the country found itself in. Turning to the West was unlikely t o yield any prospects for help since Mugabe had no plans of stepping down from t he presidential seat, thus the concentration of diplomatic missions to East Asia n countries. South Africa has experienced apartheid (whose meaning is separate) which created inequalities in terms of development within the country itself. It has a very s ophisticated industrial sector and has areas which are well-developed in terms o f infrastructure as well as social services. However, there is a very big gap be tween the rich and the poor, and the developed and underdeveloped parts of the c ountry. There are big pockets of extreme poverty in the country despite the high Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Diplomacy of Ubuntu (which denotes togetherne ss) aims to smooth the wrinkles left by apartheid. It is a response to the inter nal need for collective development without leaving anyone behind. At the core of the philosophy of Ubuntu is the concept that we cannot achieve l asting development by acting in isolation. Rather, by acting collectively and wi th combined efforts and resources, the whole community will move forward togethe r. Therefore the policy aims to unite all South Africans regardless of gender i n the development of the country so that all may enjoy the same opportunities an d that all may have access to social services as well as a just, humane, and equi table(society)of greater security, peace dialogue and economic justice (White Paper on South Africas Foreign Policy, 2011:10). The same applies to the rest of the w orld as, South Africa believes strongly that what it wishes for its people should be what it wishes for for the rest of the world (White Paper on South Africas For eign Policy, 2011:10). This is not to say that the Diplomacy of Ubuntu is completely altruistic. In res ponse to the shifting world order, where a few Developing Countries have been mo ving closer to Developed Countries in terms of capabilities, South Africa is mov ing towards maximizing her national interests in terms of investment in Africa a nd the rest of the world. With active roles in BRICS, the AU and SADC, South Afr ica aims at increasing trade relations with countries around the world. Also, the policy is aimed at cementing and protecting South Africas role as the l eading power in Africa. In the White Paper, it is indicated that South Africa re cognizes that its status in global politics is largely due to the role it plays in the continent such as conflict resolution, and it aims to keep being active i n said role so as to keep its leading position. There is the fear that another country from Africa will replace the country as the leading role in Africa. Nigeria and Angola pose the biggest threats as they are the fastest growing economies in Africa, and now that they are both relative ly stable in terms of politics, they can concentrate of developing their countri es. Due to the challenge posed by Nigeria and Angola, South Africa is working doubl y hard to maintain it position of leadership by playing active roles in the peac eful resolution of conflicts through institutions like the AU and the UN. EVALUATION The Zimbabwean Foreign Policy is rigid, and was made without taking into accou nt the current international conditions. The country can hardly expect to go aga inst the EU, US, World Bank and the IMF and hope to have a sustainable policy. T here are sure to be roadblocks along the way given the influence and power of t he Western powers. It is therefore unlikely to be successful in the long run sin ce it basically aims to ignore the most prominent organizations of the developed world which give billions of dollars in development aid to most African countri

es. Zimbabwe will have to look to the West at some point in the future since it cannot really rely on the East Asian countries only for all of its donor aid. Also, the foreign policy is ill-prepared for the eventuality that the East Asia n countries like China and Malaysia will form closer relations with the West, so as to break into the American markets for investments. If that did happen, then Zimbambwes position would be precarious at best. The Diplomacy of Ubuntu is playing the international field and is keeping all di plomatic doors open so as to secure and advance her position regionally and glob ally. By playing active roles in regional institutions (SADC and the AU) as well as global institutions (the UN), its foreign policy is more likely to succeed i n terms of investment, cooperation and collective development. However, there is the possibility that the rest of the African countries may no t feel the spirit of Ubuntu as much as the South Africans do, and may not be as committed to the level of collective action necessary for the mutual development that South Africa envisions for both its nation and region. Ubuntu is a South A frican concept, and although it has played a significant role in shaping the Sou th African consciousness, the same cannot be said for the rest of Africa, which has various cultures that shape their identity. The South African experience of apartheid is somewhat unique and so the spirit of Ubuntu may not be as welcome i n other African cultures. Furthermore, the Diplomacy of Ubuntu may lead to South Africas own undoing. The mutual development plans that the country has undertaken may lead to other count ries challenging and eventually wrestling its position of regional leadership aw ay from South Africa. As mentioned before, Nigeria and Angola currently pose the biggest threat to South Africas dominance, but there could certainly be more con tenders for the position of champion in the near future. CONCLUSION The foreign policies of South Africa and Zimbabwe have their ties and their di visions in terms of interests ans visions but they are both fundamentally an ext ension of their domestic policy and have been shaped by various and complex fact ors, such as president Mugabes defiance of the Western powers and Sputh Africas hi story of racial divisions. Its reactionary nature makes the Zimbabwean foreign policy less likely to succe ed while the visionary nature of the Ubuntu Diplomacy means fundamental changes are on the horizon for African international relations. After our analysis and evaluation of these two foreign policies we have noted t hat as citizens of the world, African states cannot help but find a way to fit i nto the international system due to the nature of their internal problems. they cannot afford to ignore the major players who shape the system. Therefore, the f oreign policy of any country, African or otherwise, must adress the world around it or risk becoming inadequate for the countrys relations with the international community.

REFERENCES Chigora, P (2006) Turkish Journal of International Relations, Volume 5 No.3. Chigora, P and Dewa, D (2009) Surviving in a Hostile Environment: An Analysis of Zimbabwes Foreign Relations in the 21st Century International Relations, African J ouranl of Political Science and International Relations Vol.3(3). Matthews, K and Mushi, S. S (eds) (1981) Foreign Policy of Tanzania 1961-1981: A Reader, Tanzania Publishing House. Rangarirai, G. M. (2011) The Socio-economic Dimension of Zimbabwes Look East Polic y, Berlerly Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1. No. 4. Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu, White Paper on South Africas Fore ign Policy, 2011 www.academicjournals.org Retrieved 29/11/2011, 2:43 PM. www.berkerlyjournalofsocialsciences.com/april3.pdf, Retrieved 29/11/2011, 2:37 P M. www.cnn.com Retrieved 14/12/2011, 05:45 PM. www.nytimes.com, Retrieved 14/12/2011, 05:46 PM. www.zimfa.gov.zw, Retrieved 29/11/2011, 1:12 PM.