Narrating Their ‘Upstairs’ Ties in the Post-Apartheid Period (circa 1990-2005)
2. Middle Powers and Partnership - Unpacking two conceptual tools
2.2 Partnership
The Asian-African Summit, which was held in Jakarta on the 22nd and 23rd of April 2005 and which was jointly sponsored by South Africa and Indonesia, formulated a strategic partnership between Asia and Africa in order to promote cooperation in the fields of economy, investment, technology and human resources development. The crucial word used at this summit as well as other gatherings prior to this summit was
‘partnership’; what does the word mean and what are the implications when it is employed within these circles? The concept has been used as a way of advancing the interest of all parties involved in the partnership. A helpful point to start is a commonplace source, namely the Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (2001: 850); it offered the following meanings: (a) the state of being a partner in a business, (b) a relationship between two people, organizations, etc. and (c) a business owned by two or more persons who share the profits. A close look at these dictionary meanings reflected that each of them is interconnected. The last mentioned implies that the owners who own the business have a pure business relationship in which they have agreed upon the way the business should be managed and how the profits and losses should be shared.
Shifting from the dictionary understanding of the concept to another proffered by a New Straits Times’ columnist, John K.S. (2002: 11), will bring out a slightly different interpretation of the concept. He expanded on the notion of ‘partnership’ in his article entitled ‘Adopting Smart Partnership Ideals.’ John argued that the mode of partnership is premised upon two variables: (a) mutual respect for one another, and (b) trust to jointly take a risk and reward sharing. From this it is understood that all parties share equally and that they have a common goal and where both ‘act’ towards profit sharing; in others both win through the process of action. John further made the point that real and smart partnerships ‘must ensure that all parties in a venture experience a win.’ He referred to the Langkawi International Dialogue (LID) that was initiated and promoted by Mahathir as a way of contributing towards South-South dialogue and cooperation. The LID forum
sought to develop and promote a smart partnership philosophy of ‘Prosper Thy Neighbour;’ a philosophy that is somewhat embedded within the religious philosophy that Mahathir espoused and followed as well as the ideas of Confucius that permeated the Asian continent. The relationship in this partnership is thus viewed as being one where there is mutual trust, respect and openness; within this type of partnership there is ample opportunity for dialogue, cooperation and collaboration in all spheres. This explanation links up with what Axelrod (2004: 9) had to say about the concept. He stated that ‘a working definition of partnership is a collaborative relationship between entities to work towards shared objectives through mutually agreed division of labor.’
Another dimension of the notion of partnership has been explained by a group of researchers who worked on the crime prevention project in South Africa. The National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) requested that guidelines be worked out that would assist everyone in South Africa in fighting crime and which has become endemic in many parts of South Africa. The team (Nel et al 2000) produced a manual in which they viewed
‘partnership’ as a key concept that would help stem the criminal tide and minimize its effects on different levels and in various sectors. Even though the ideas expressed regarding this concept have been confined to crime prevention, I am of the view that the concept, which they neatly unpacked and explained, could be usefully appropriated in other areas such as International Relations. Nel et al (2000: 27) stated that ‘partnerships are a way of using the resources and skills in a community (and government) in such a way that all partners benefit….’ Partners, they argued (2000: 28), are not short-cut to obtain quick (financial) rewards. By partnership is meant bringing groups together to participate in discussing about potential business projects, consulting one another regularly, setting up the relevant structures, and balancing the competing interests. In this regard, Axelrod (2004: 9) highlighted the fact that ‘a partnership is not a gift … (but) aims to take advantage of what the recipient, as well as the donor (i.e. the investing state/company), can bring to the relationship,’ and this would include local expertise and better understanding of the needs and priorities. And this further connects with the view expressed by Ingram (2004: xiv) when he referred to Douglas North who stated that partnership should be viewed ‘as an instrument to build the institutional capacity that is
needed to improve economic performance.’
In the light of these definitions and explanations, one of the key principles of a smart, close and, indeed, strategic partnership is that it should be well thought through, and should be considered as more important than who initiated the project or partnership.
Within an open and trusting environment and a well planned partnership the individuals or companies that enter into partnership must (a) share information, (b) coordinate activities, (c) identify, (d) set priorities and (e) be accountable and transparent. In order for these ingredients to flow smoothly within a business project, a qualified (foreign affairs) manager should be appointed; someone who is able to provide crucial leadership and who has a good understanding not only of the business but also of numerous other variables such as the cultural practices of the (foreign) companies that form part of the partnership. The pro-active foreign affairs manager should possess a vision and a plan of action that would advance the interest of all the partners involved, and he/she should be able to stimulate an interest in the project and have the skills that would easily access decision makers such as the foreign affairs ministry or the presidency.
Habib & Selinyane (2004: 56) cautioned those who entered into a partnership not to romanticise it, and Kuseni (2004: 180) argued that for the state to move forward, business is a strategic ally of government in the creation of wealth. Since this is the case when reviewing the relationship between South Africa and Malaysia, the process of partnership or partnering becomes an important factor in achieving the common goals of both nation- states. He added that their interaction within the global economy requires sound partnerships. It is therefore assumed that when South Africa and Malaysia resumed their trade ties, and forged diplomatic bonds in 1993, they envisioned establishing and forming a worthy partnership in which both nation states would mutually benefit. In concluding the discussion on this concept, I wish to appropriate and adapt the ideas of Botchwey (2004: 101-102) who spoke about ‘giving partnership an operational meaning.’ In forging an effective partnership between, for example, a Malaysian company and South Africa, it should include the following components:
• Country (eg. South Africa) ownership of the agenda. This is broadly defined as leadership by the recipient country (i.e. South Africa) in setting the agenda, mobilizing and coordinating support for it, and sustaining it through the intellectual and political commitment of the (South African) government and the broad support of stakeholders, based upon their participation in the policy making process and understanding the key objectives of the investment/project;
• Support by the (Malaysian) investor company of the national development agenda through an adaptation of their programs and administrative procedures to the recipient country’s (i.e. South Africa’s) national strategy and local conditions.
This should be achieved through a consultative process, preferably conducted in the recipient country (South Africa); and
• A rationalization of the (Malaysian) investment programs and projects within the overall framework of the (South African) national agenda, a harmonization of (the Malaysian) investor administrative procedures to ease pressure on country (i.e. South Africa’s) capacity.
The conceptualization of ‘middle powers’ and ‘partnership’ in the afore-mentioned paragraphs and sections assist to frame the subsequent discussion that gives attention to the bilateral relations that developed between South Africa and Malaysia, two sovereign nation-states from the South. The conceptualization of these two terms helps to provide a fair overview and a better understanding of the South Africa and Malaysia’s middle power status, on the one hand, and they also aid one in assessing and reflecting, on the other, upon the nature of the close partnership that has developed between South Africa and Malaysia since the beginning of the 1990s. Figure 4.1 below is an attempt to capture the relationship between these two states after 1994. Whilst it might be well-nigh impossible to identify, record and analyse most - if not all – of the activities that had taken place between these two states since official diplomatic ties were resumed in 1993 until the end of 2005, an attempt will be made to, at least, demonstrate to what extent the socio-political ties developed and to what degree the commercial connections between
the two states transformed and changed their relations into a fairly close partnership. The following section thus first concentrates on the socio-political bonds, and it thereafter discusses the commercial connections.
Figure 4.1
South Africa – Malaysia:
Towards a Partnership
Malaysia South Africa