Naval drills test SA’s non-alignment as geopolitics catches up with planning

South Africa’s joint naval exercise with China and Russia, held in Simon’s Town in Cape Town, has reignited debate about the country’s foreign policy at a time of heightened global tension.

The possible participation of Iran – whether as an observer or an active partner – has added to the controversy, with the government yet to offer a clear public clarification.

The drills, involving rescue operations, maritime strike simulations and technical exchanges, were planned well in advance. But analysts say international realities have overtaken the original intent, placing Pretoria under an uncomfortable diplomatic spotlight.

Autonomy versus perception

Professor David Monyae, Director of the Centre for Africa–China Studies at the University of Johannesburg, argues that South Africa’s actions must be understood through the lens of strategic autonomy.

He says membership of BRICS comes with cooperation agreements, including military engagement, and that South Africa is not obliged to shape its decisions around the preferences of other powers, including the United States.

However, Monyae concedes that government communication has been lacking. “The nation needs to be taken into confidence about why these decisions are made, especially given the timing,” he says.

The political cost of military action

Defence analyst Professor Abel Esterhuyse from Stellenbosch University cautions that military activity is never politically neutral.

“Militaries operate in a political environment. Exercises signal intent and values, whether we like it or not,” he says, noting that South Africa enjoys positive trade balances with Europe and the US, while its trade with China and India is less favourable.

Esterhuyse believes Pretoria should have shown greater flexibility, particularly given ongoing US deliberations around trade access and mounting concern over Iran’s internal repression and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Values, consistency and African primacy

A key fault line in the debate is whether South Africa’s foreign policy is being applied consistently. Esterhuyse argues that strategic autonomy does not mean moral silence.

“If we invoke constitutional values and human rights in some cases, we should be prepared to do so in others – including when partners are China, Russia or Iran,” he says.

Questions were also raised about African primacy: why were no African navies, such as Nigeria or Kenya, involved in the exercise, despite shared maritime security challenges?

A broader reckoning

Monyae rejects what he calls ‘selective morality’, arguing that global politics is driven as much by pragmatism as principle. He points to Western military interventions and double standards, insisting South Africa must diversify partnerships to protect its economic interests and promote a multipolar world.

What both experts agree on is that the controversy exposes deeper uncertainty about South Africa’s place in a fractured global order – and the costs it is willing to bear to defend an independent foreign policy.

As Pretoria prepares to brief the media, the drills have become more than a naval exercise: they are a stress test of South Africa’s diplomacy, values and credibility on the world stage.

For more information, listen to Monyae and Esterhuyse using the audio player below: