THE COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICA AND RUSSIA

IF 0.3 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Strategic Review for Southern Africa Pub Date : 2020-12-22 DOI:10.35293/SRSA.V37I2.247
Deon Geidenhuys
{"title":"THE COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SOUTH AFRICA AND RUSSIA","authors":"Deon Geidenhuys","doi":"10.35293/SRSA.V37I2.247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Following an international trend, South Africa and Russia entered into a \"strategic partnership\" in 2006 and in 2013 upgraded it to a \"comprehensive strategic partnership\". This article examines the formal architecture of the partnership by means of Wilkins's \"strategic partnership model\". One of very few analytical devices for the study of bilateral partnerships between states, Wilkins's template probes three phases in the development of such alignments, namely their formation, implementation and evaluation. Based on a set of international instruments devised by South Africa and Russia, the institutional features of their comprehensive strategic partnership are set out and a tentative evaluation of its operation is offered. A comparative dimension is introduced by referring to formal aspects of South Africa's strategic partnerships with its other BRICS partners, namely China, India and Brazil. 1. Introduction It is an age-old phenomenon that certain bilateral relationships between states are in some ways \"special\" or \"privileged\" and hence more important, better or closer than \"ordinary\" inter-state ties. In the 19th century, for instance, relations between Germany and Austria and between Russia and France were considered as exceptional by the parties involved (Evans and Newnham 1992:304). In modern times the notion of a 'special relationship', especially when written in capital letters, is reserved more or less exclusively for that between America and Britain (Evans and Newnham 1992:304). The term itself was coined by Winston Churchill in March 1946, when he was the leader of the Opposition in the British Parliament. In an historic address delivered in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill warned that \"an iron curtain has descended across the Continent\" (Europe) and that Western powers should stand together against the perceived Soviet threat. What he called \"a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States\" would be at the heart of a united front. Such a \"fraternal association\", as Churchill portrayed it, \"requires not only the growing friendship between our two vast but kindred Systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship\" in the military and security domains (Modern History Sourcebook, undated). The so-called Atlantic Alliance between Britain and America endured--with ebbs and flows --throughout the Cold War. In part due to the huge inequalities between the two partners in economic and military terms, the designation \"special relationship\" lost favour in recent years. In 2011, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron opted for the expression \"essential relationship\" between the United States (US) and Britain (quoted by Blanco 2011:15). Many other states have since 1945 also claimed a form of \"specialness\" for their bilateral relationships. Consider, for instance, ties between some former imperial powers and their ex-colonies, which are said to constitute \"families of nations\" (Haugevik 2010: 2-3); the Commonwealth, born of the British Empire, is the best-known embodiment of such an historical association. Since the 1990s states began displaying a preference for the adjective \"strategic\" to depict bilateral relationships that are supposed to be deeper and stronger than \"standard\" interactions, but usually without extending to alliances (understood as formal agreements for military cooperation in the face of common threats). The terms \"strategic partnership\" and \"strategic relationship\" are nowadays used the world over (Blanco 2011:1-2). Among numerous examples are strategic partnerships/relationships between India and the US (Teja 2014: 183-194), Syria and Iran (Lawson 2007:29-47), the US and Israel (Miller 2013:16), the US and Saudi Arabia (Miller 2013:1-6), China and South Korea (Kim 2008: 97-121), and Brazil and Japan (Lessa 2010: 123). Variations on the \"partnership\" theme include \"constructive strategic partnership\" (as the US and China envisaged in the 1990s) (Shambaugh 2004: 97); \"comprehensive strategic partnership\" (as between Russia and South Africa); \"privileged strategic partnership\" (Russia and India); and \"fundamental partnership\" (the US and Brazil) (Lessa 2010: 120). …","PeriodicalId":41892,"journal":{"name":"Strategic Review for Southern Africa","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategic Review for Southern Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35293/SRSA.V37I2.247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Abstract Following an international trend, South Africa and Russia entered into a "strategic partnership" in 2006 and in 2013 upgraded it to a "comprehensive strategic partnership". This article examines the formal architecture of the partnership by means of Wilkins's "strategic partnership model". One of very few analytical devices for the study of bilateral partnerships between states, Wilkins's template probes three phases in the development of such alignments, namely their formation, implementation and evaluation. Based on a set of international instruments devised by South Africa and Russia, the institutional features of their comprehensive strategic partnership are set out and a tentative evaluation of its operation is offered. A comparative dimension is introduced by referring to formal aspects of South Africa's strategic partnerships with its other BRICS partners, namely China, India and Brazil. 1. Introduction It is an age-old phenomenon that certain bilateral relationships between states are in some ways "special" or "privileged" and hence more important, better or closer than "ordinary" inter-state ties. In the 19th century, for instance, relations between Germany and Austria and between Russia and France were considered as exceptional by the parties involved (Evans and Newnham 1992:304). In modern times the notion of a 'special relationship', especially when written in capital letters, is reserved more or less exclusively for that between America and Britain (Evans and Newnham 1992:304). The term itself was coined by Winston Churchill in March 1946, when he was the leader of the Opposition in the British Parliament. In an historic address delivered in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill warned that "an iron curtain has descended across the Continent" (Europe) and that Western powers should stand together against the perceived Soviet threat. What he called "a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States" would be at the heart of a united front. Such a "fraternal association", as Churchill portrayed it, "requires not only the growing friendship between our two vast but kindred Systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship" in the military and security domains (Modern History Sourcebook, undated). The so-called Atlantic Alliance between Britain and America endured--with ebbs and flows --throughout the Cold War. In part due to the huge inequalities between the two partners in economic and military terms, the designation "special relationship" lost favour in recent years. In 2011, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron opted for the expression "essential relationship" between the United States (US) and Britain (quoted by Blanco 2011:15). Many other states have since 1945 also claimed a form of "specialness" for their bilateral relationships. Consider, for instance, ties between some former imperial powers and their ex-colonies, which are said to constitute "families of nations" (Haugevik 2010: 2-3); the Commonwealth, born of the British Empire, is the best-known embodiment of such an historical association. Since the 1990s states began displaying a preference for the adjective "strategic" to depict bilateral relationships that are supposed to be deeper and stronger than "standard" interactions, but usually without extending to alliances (understood as formal agreements for military cooperation in the face of common threats). The terms "strategic partnership" and "strategic relationship" are nowadays used the world over (Blanco 2011:1-2). Among numerous examples are strategic partnerships/relationships between India and the US (Teja 2014: 183-194), Syria and Iran (Lawson 2007:29-47), the US and Israel (Miller 2013:16), the US and Saudi Arabia (Miller 2013:1-6), China and South Korea (Kim 2008: 97-121), and Brazil and Japan (Lessa 2010: 123). Variations on the "partnership" theme include "constructive strategic partnership" (as the US and China envisaged in the 1990s) (Shambaugh 2004: 97); "comprehensive strategic partnership" (as between Russia and South Africa); "privileged strategic partnership" (Russia and India); and "fundamental partnership" (the US and Brazil) (Lessa 2010: 120). …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南非与俄罗斯的全面战略伙伴关系
顺应国际潮流,南非与俄罗斯于2006年建立“战略伙伴关系”,并于2013年升级为“全面战略伙伴关系”。本文运用威尔金斯的“战略伙伴关系模型”来考察伙伴关系的形式架构。作为研究国家间双边伙伴关系的极少数分析工具之一,威尔金斯的模板探讨了这种联盟发展的三个阶段,即它们的形成、实施和评估。根据南非和俄罗斯制定的一套国际文书,阐述了两国全面战略伙伴关系的体制特点,并对其运作情况进行了初步评价。通过参考南非与其他金砖国家伙伴(即中国、印度和巴西)战略伙伴关系的正式方面,引入了比较维度。国家之间的某些双边关系在某种程度上是“特殊的”或“特权的”,因此比“普通的”国家间关系更重要、更好或更密切,这是一个古老的现象。例如,在19世纪,德国和奥地利以及俄罗斯和法国之间的关系被相关各方视为例外(Evans和Newnham 1992:304)。在现代,“特殊关系”的概念,尤其是用大写字母写的时候,或多或少是专门为英美之间的关系保留的(Evans and Newnham 1992:304)。1946年3月,温斯顿·丘吉尔(Winston Churchill)在英国议会担任反对党领袖时创造了这个词。在密苏里州富尔顿发表的一次历史性讲话中,丘吉尔警告说,“铁幕已经笼罩整个欧洲大陆”,西方大国应该团结起来,共同对抗苏联的威胁。他所说的“英联邦、大英帝国和美国之间的特殊关系”将是统一战线的核心。正如丘吉尔所描述的那样,这种“兄弟般的联盟”“不仅需要我们两个庞大而相似的社会体系之间日益增长的友谊,而且需要在军事和安全领域继续保持亲密关系”(现代历史资料书,未注明日期)。在整个冷战期间,英美之间所谓的大西洋联盟(Atlantic Alliance)经历了起起落落。在一定程度上,由于两国在经济和军事方面存在巨大的不平等,“特殊关系”的说法近年来失宠。2011年,美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马和英国首相戴维•卡梅伦选择了美国和英国之间的“基本关系”一词(引用自布兰科2011:15)。自1945年以来,许多其他国家也声称其双边关系具有某种形式的“特殊性”。例如,考虑一下一些前帝国主义列强与其前殖民地之间的关系,据说这些关系构成了“民族大家庭”(Haugevik 2010: 2-3);诞生于大英帝国的英联邦是这种历史联系最著名的体现。自20世纪90年代以来,各国开始倾向于用“战略”这个形容词来描述双边关系,这种关系应该比“标准”的互动更深入、更牢固,但通常不会扩展到联盟(被理解为面对共同威胁时军事合作的正式协议)。“战略伙伴关系”和“战略关系”这两个术语如今在世界各地都被使用(Blanco 2011:1-2)。众多的例子包括印度和美国(Teja 2014: 183-194)、叙利亚和伊朗(Lawson 2007:29-47)、美国和以色列(Miller 2013:16)、美国和沙特阿拉伯(Miller 2013:1-6)、中国和韩国(Kim 2008: 97-121)、巴西和日本(Lessa 2010: 123)之间的战略伙伴关系/关系。“伙伴关系”主题的变体包括“建设性战略伙伴关系”(正如美国和中国在20世纪90年代设想的那样)(Shambaugh 2004: 97);“全面战略伙伴关系”(如俄罗斯与南非之间);“特权战略伙伴关系”(俄罗斯和印度);以及“基本伙伴关系”(美国和巴西)(Lessa 2010: 120)。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Peace Enforcement in the Democratic Republic of Congo Editorial The Kampala Convention and Challenges to Geopolitical Security Why Burundi intervenes in the DRC: Self-interest to Pan-Africanist considerations? Decolonizing Knowledge Production and Power Relations in African Studies: Prospects and Challenges
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1