The forthcoming commemoration of the 2001 Durban anti‑racism conference — referred to as Durban V — in New York has prompted renewed concern about how South Africa positions itself on the global stage and the domestic consequences of that posture.
From Cape Town streets to UN halls
A recent commentary argues the original 2001 Durban conference was marred by an agenda‑setting meeting in Tehran that adopted what it describes as an explicitly antisemitic posture. That gathering, the piece notes, prompted Israel and the United States to walk out of the Durban event, and led then–US Secretary of State Colin Powell to publicly disavow the conference.
The same commentary points out the extraordinary historical context: within a week of those controversies, terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York. This month’s UN General Assembly high‑level forum will be the fifth iteration of the anti‑racism conference, and the commentator says an increasing number of nations are now boycotting or limiting their involvement.
“Just as ‘war is politics by other means,’ racial politics can offer paths to power via coercive means,”
The commentary contends Durban V is perceived by many as an anti‑Western initiative, amplified by actors it names as China and Russia, and it warns of influence from Iran. It argues these states seek to weaken Western influence and values in favour of authoritarian models and, in Iran’s case, to promote Islamic values through institutions and international fora.
What this means for South Africa
The piece explicitly separates South Africa’s national interests from the alleged anti‑Western agenda. It states South Africa’s interests and values are not anti‑Western, and stresses that the country’s most plausible path to mass job‑creating industrialisation is continued access to Western markets.
On economic relations, the commentary warns that
- China will continue to buy primary materials and to supply finished goods, but value‑adding exports to Western markets are the strongest route to job creation; and
- closer alignment with states seen as anti‑Western would be costly and counterproductive for South Africa’s poor and unemployed.
Domestically, the commentary links policy choices to outcomes for the poor. It argues that, since the 1994 political transition, the country’s overarching mission should have been to generate broad‑based prosperity, and that policies which have displaced merit with race‑based regulations have undermined that objective — leaving the poor and unemployed as “the biggest losers”.
Political trade‑offs and consequences
The argument raises three political trade‑offs for South African decision‑makers.
- Diplomatic alignment versus economic interest: whether to cultivate relations with powers that challenge Western influence, at the expense of market access that supports industrialisation and employment.
- International credibility versus domestic politics: balancing principled criticism of racism with avoiding international platforms that may be perceived as hostile or unbalanced.
- Social policy design: reconciling redress and transformation with the need to promote competence and growth that create jobs for the poor.
Those who share the commentary’s view will urge sober assessment of Durban V and caution against symbolic alignments that might have tangible economic costs. Others — not represented in the piece — might argue the forum remains a legitimate vehicle for addressing global racism and inequality.
The immediate practical effect is already visible: the commentary says an expanding list of countries are limiting participation in Durban V, which will shape the event’s tone and influence. For South Africa, the question is whether its diplomats and political leaders will prioritise alignment with non‑Western states that criticise Western policies, or reinforce ties that the commentary says deliver the best prospects for jobs and prosperity at home.
Either way, the debate exposes enduring tensions in South African foreign policy: the desire to criticise global injustices and the need to secure economic relationships that lift millions out of poverty. Those tensions will now play out again in New York, with implications well beyond the UN podiums.
