Every approach, regardless of theory used, has limitations. None can claim to seek an essential truth, but they offer informative perspectives. These are several theoretical and practical limitations recognised for this study. First the theoretical limitations are addressed.
44 A primary limitation of any identity-based study is that it favours ideational over material concerns.
Ignoring the material aspects of the emerging South Africa’s relationship with the rest of the continent could risk the omission of factors related to hegemonic, economic and military power. As will be seen in Chapter 4, South African leadership has taken domestic and continental economic prosperity seriously. Nonetheless, international human rights debates are inherently driven by ideas rather than material concerns, but it is important to acknowledge that striving for moral leadership, for example, may also be a means to foster material gains, such as through favourable access to markets. Nonetheless, within the SOGI dedicated debates it is important to pay particular attention to material concerns that may arise, such as the threats to aid funds, to mitigate this risk.
A concern with identity-based analysis is the structure and agency debate (Wendt, 1987). This highlights the tension between a state expressing its own identity and the power of the international structure of states to define it. Constructivists recognise both agency and structure as mutually influencing on identities and interests, as is the case in Queer Theory. Despite Queer Theory emerging as an identity focussed discipline, it recognises the power that the social structure has to define or reject agents’ identities. Indeed, as a critical approach, Queer Theory takes very seriously the power of the structure over the agency of states to define and control the image they project.
This tension is a defining feature of this study, which therefore seeks to balance understanding the image South Africa attempts to project and how the discursive power within the international structure seek to define states that support SOGI rights.
As evidenced in the existing constructivist analysis in Chapter 2 as well as the problems associated with assemblage states noted by Puri (2016) and Weber (2016a), identity-base approaches can be difficult. Far from being rational, cohesive entities, states are assemblages of actors who may not always adhere to policy and may contradict colleagues. This can make interpretation of particular state interests or identities challenging. Whilst this study acknowledges the agency of individual representatives, there is an expectation of policy coherence in the public, recorded statements on behalf of the states within the UN and in respect to the seniority of the delegates within government. Such responses are carefully designed and framed to appropriately reflect the values, interests and identity that officers of the state have been mandated to project. What cannot be determined or assessed through this discourse analysis approach is how these actors behave within informal, off-the-record meetings. These are anticipated limitations of the study, which necessarily only focuses on recorded contributions (audio, video, verbatim transcript and written statements) of delegates.
Queer Theory and its methods have also not been extensively tested in IR. That is one of the purposes of this study. However, this presents two key problems. Firstly, as noted earlier in this chapter, even within its founding sociological disciplines this theory is subject to many, often loose, interpretations. Secondly, Queer Theory has been criticised as too ill disciplined for the discipline of IR (Spargo, 2000:9; Thiel, 2014). To overcome these concerns, this study has chosen a focused approach that builds on the defined theoretical foundations and methodology of Weber’s queer logics of statecraft (2016a; 2016b; 2016e). In doing so, it attempts to avoid the messiness and vague
45 application of queer discourse analysis that can be a weakness of studies in Queer Theory and queer discourse analysis.
As an extension of the above concerns, Queer Theory and the ‘and/or’ construct for state identity of queer logics of statecraft challenge the binary thinking in much IR scholarship (Thiel, 2014; Weber, 2016a; 2016b). However, it reflects a profoundly queer perspective experienced by many queer people when asked to identify on expected binaries of gender and sex, to which they may not adhere, as illustrated in Weber’s anecdote above (2016a:40). This and/or construct is a defining feature of the queer methodology applied in this study and is used to explain the inconsistencies in the South African state identity in relation to SOGI rights.
Finally, attempting to determine intention of state actors is always a risk. Whilst some indications of intent may be assumed from what actors say and do, these assumptions will be dependent on subjective interpretation. In a public policy environment it can be difficult, even through interviews, to establish the intentions of state agents, or, as noted above, whether they are even rationally thought through. In addition, interpretation through queer discourse analysis is subjective and therefore open to contestation. In this regard, the conclusions of this study must be understood as one perspective on the issue and will be open to challenge from other perspectives. The aim is not to identify the truth, but to suggest an alternative perspective that will encourage critical thinking and debate.
Practically, the research methodology chosen presents few barriers since the reliance on UN records means that the material analysed is systematically documented and stored and openly accessibly.
There were, however, three limitations to this particular archive.
Firstly, the UN organs are multilingual and so not all the speeches are delivered in English, some are presented in Arabic, French, Mandarin, Russian and Spanish. The video recordings are available in the original language and simultaneous English translation. This means that some speeches are subject to interpretation and error by the interpreters, who, nevertheless, are highly experienced. It should be noted that the majority of the African delegations, who spoke or submitted written statements, did so in English, including key protagonists, South Africa, Nigeria, Namibia and Botswana. Furthermore, discussions within the UN organisations follow a relatively strict discursive pattern and certain phrases and expressions are repeatedly used as the analysis in Chapter Six demonstrates. This perhaps restricts the freedom delegations might want to fully express their opinions.
Secondly, despite months of contacting numerous UN departments, UNHRC recordings of sessions preceding the 18th Regular Session (September 2011) are no longer publicly available and no one within the UN was able to provide access. This includes audio and video of the debates on 16/L.27 and 17/19. This also applied to the debates on the 2003 Brazilian draft SOGI resolution, and statements on LGBT/SOGI rights submitted in 2005, 2006 and 2008, which were therefore not included within the scope of the discourse analysis. Where available, hard copy records, including filed versions of oral statements, and secondary sources including ARC International (2006), Girard
46 (2007), Human Rights Watch (2008), ISHR (2011), McGill (2014) and Jordaan (2017a; 2017b; 2020), were used to complete the contextual analysis. However, only verbatim quotes in these could be used for discourse analysis purposes.
The third and final limitation relates to the scope of the research and the breadth of UN debates that include issues encompassed with the definition of SOGI. Activists and academics have recognised the inclusion of sexual orientation with a variety of rights debates including but not limited to sexual rights, rights to health (particularly in relation to HIV/AIDS), family rights, freedom from torture and extrajudicial killings (Long, 2005; Jordaan, 2017a; 2017b; 2020). Within various organs of the UN there have been hours of debate, negotiation and compromise on the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in a variety of presentations, resolutions and statements. Attempting to study them all and identifying the role that South Africa played within them would be both a considerable volume of work, but also, given the wider remit of these resolutions, challenging to disaggregate sentiment exclusively focused on SOGI issues during discussions in which a variety of other issues may also be covered. Including other debates in the analysis would require an equally robust analysis of all meetings across the same timeframe, much of which would not necessarily relate to the SOGI specific clauses. For the integrity of the research process, it was important to clearly define the scope of the archive material studied. The SOGI specific agenda has been tabled for most years (see page 100 for the timetable of initiatives) since the passing of the first dedicated resolution in 2011 until 2020 and the subject of debate has always, unequivocally been SOGI related. Although this is not the complete record of SOGI related debate, it offers a significant, focused and lengthy archive from which to analyse the discourse in which South African interventions have been inconsistent.
47
4 The Domestic Context: SOGI rights in Domestic and Foreign Policy
To provide context to the inconsistencies in South African support for SOGI rights within the UN, the focus of this chapter is the first level of analysis, the state. It explores the history of the adoption of SOGI rights in domestic and foreign policy of South Africa. In doing so it also reflects on the tensions identified within the literature review, including those between potentially competing priorities of African solidarity and the support for liberal human rights. In covering this history, the domestic political and social perceptions of SOGI rights and the tensions that adopting these rights uncovered within the political leadership are revealed. Reflecting the fact that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy, the second section explores the foreign policy priorities for South Africa and the place that SOGI rights have within them. This is essential to better understand the state identity South Africa wants to project into the World and to expose the competing priorities that face South Africa in executing policy to determine whether therein lies the causes of any inconsistencies in approach.