Manifesting a Diplomacy of Ubuntu
Linking south africa's foreign policy with its domestic energy
Daniel Tate
Daniel Tate argues that the South African state’s continued commitment to fossil fuel extractivism fundamentally undermines its professed diplomacy of ubuntu by perpetuating ecological and human harm, entrenching dependency, and eroding the credibility of its foreign policy. A just, renewable energy transition is not only a domestic imperative, but a diplomatic necessity. Accordingly, South African policymakers should strive for greater coherence between the state’s domestic and foreign policies.
Amidst the rise of nationalism, transactionalism, and geopolitical turmoil in present-day world politics, parts of South Africa’s 2011 White Paper on the Diplomacy of Ubuntu can read like fiction. The White Paper promotes ‘an approach to international relations that respects all nations, peoples, and cultures’ and ‘recognises that it is in our national interest to promote and support the positive development of others.’[i] This diplomatic approach is premised on the philosophical concept of ubuntu – a Nguni word meaning ‘humanity’ – a value system emphasising common humanity: ‘I am because we are.’ Accordingly, this government policy statement links South Africa’s foreign policy with human dignity, multilateralism, regional development, peace, and economic justice – the kinds of aspirations that seem so distant in a multilateral system currently under assault by realpolitik.
To be sure, the White Paper has faced much critique since its publication, with scholars highlighting the dissonance between the rhetoric and values posited by the Paper and the actual policy practice of the South African government.[ii] While the White Paper has provided durable organising language for South Africa’s foreign policy to this day,[iii] and while South Africa generally displays a basic commitment to a rule-based international order,[iv] there are multiple areas of the state’s foreign policy where the value system of ubuntu seems like an afterthought.
My contribution here joins these critiques, but also underscores how the White Paper on the Diplomacy of Ubuntu provides important policy grounds on which to build a stronger link between South Africa’s foreign policy and its domestic development priorities – specifically in the area of the domestic energy transition. I argue that the expansion of fossil fuels domestically betrays South Africa’s aspirations for a foreign policy premised on common humanity – on ubuntu. Rather than seeking to expand oil and gas exploration/production, or excessively extending the usage of coal plants, the South African state should prioritise policy pathways that enable a just, equitable, and expedited transition to renewable energies with the least possible usage of fossil fuels. Moreover, South African policymakers should strive for greater intersection between foreign policy and domestic (energy) policy.
The stance I take in this piece is premised on the link between foreign policy, diplomacy, and domestic development priorities, which is well-established academically and codified in South Africa’s foreign policy legislation and policies. Any state’s domestic policymaking regarding its energy transition is intimately related to its foreign policy and diplomacy, with ramifications for its energy diplomacy, trade policies, and approaches to regionalism.
It is necessary to confront directly the political economy underpinning South Africa’s current energy trajectory. The persistence of what might be termed coal fundamentalism – and fossil fuel loyalism more broadly – is not simply a matter of energy security pragmatism. It reflects a deeper commitment to an extractivist development model that sits uneasily, if not outright contradicts, the normative foundations of ubuntu diplomacy.
Extractivism is not merely the extraction of natural resources, but a broader model of accumulation centred on large-scale removal of raw materials for export, typically under conditions of external dependence and domestic inequality.[v] It is historically tied to colonial patterns of accumulation. From the vantage point of ubuntu, this order is deeply problematic. The White Paper emphasises principles such as the ‘rejection of colonialism,’ the protection of sovereignty, and the pursuit of ‘just and lasting solutions’ to structural inequalities. Yet extractivist energy systems – whether coal in Mpumalanga Province or prospective offshore gas projects – risk embedding South Africa within global circuits of dependency that echo precisely the asymmetries the White Paper advocates transcending.[vi] Reliance on fossil fuel exports and imports alike ties the economy to volatile markets and to geopolitical relationships that may undermine its autonomy. Fossil fuel expansion may not safeguard sovereignty; it risks diluting it.
The contradiction becomes even more pronounced when considering the ethical core of ubuntu as a philosophy of relational humanity. Ubuntu foregrounds interdependence, dignity, and the recognition that one’s well-being is inseparable from that of others. Fossil fuel extractivism, by contrast, is predicated on externalising harm – onto local communities, onto ecosystems, and onto future generations. In South Africa, this is visible in the well-documented health and environmental consequences of coal mining and combustion, particularly in Mpumalanga’s Highveld Priority Area, where air pollution has been linked to severe respiratory illness and premature mortality.[vii] It is difficult to reconcile such outcomes with a foreign policy that purports to centre human dignity.
Moreover, the climate dimension globalises this ethical tension. South Africa is one of the most carbon-intensive economies in the world,[viii] and its continued reliance on coal has implications far beyond its borders. Climate change, as a cumulative and transboundary phenomenon, directly implicates the ‘common humanity’ invoked in ubuntu. Though it is true that economies in the Global South have not been historically responsible for most carbon emissions to date, we must draft energy policy not for the energy system we want today, but for the one we want in the decades to come. Thus, irrespective of historical emissions responsibility, there are no reasonable grounds to sustain excessively a hydrocarbon-intensive economy today, when the imperative of the climate crisis necessitates a just transition to a renewables-based economy in the near future. Indeed, research is increasingly indicating that such a renewables-based economy would be more cost-effective too.
Moreover, these tensions feed back into South Africa’s foreign policy posture and its claims to regional and global leadership. The White Paper envisions South Africa as a normative actor – a champion of multilateralism and human rights. Yet credibility in this role depends not only on diplomatic rhetoric but on domestic policy coherence. As several scholars have argued, South Africa’s soft power has historically been rooted in its moral authority as a post-apartheid state committed to justice and reconciliation.[ix] That authority is increasingly strained when domestic policies appear to privilege short-term political considerations over longer-term commitments to justice – whether social or ecological. Can a state claim to advance a diplomacy of ubuntu while sustaining an energy system that undermines the ecological basis of human dignity globally?
Energy diplomacy is a particularly salient arena where this contradiction plays out. South Africa’s engagement in the Southern African Power Pool, its role in shaping African energy governance, and its bilateral energy relationships are all influenced by its domestic energy model. A continued emphasis on fossil fuels risks locking South Africa into forms of cooperation that prioritise hydrocarbon development, potentially at the expense of more transformative regional energy pathways centred on renewable international electricity trade and cross-border grid integration. It may also align the state more closely with fossil fuel-exporting states, the governance practices of which sit uneasily with the human rights commitments articulated in the White Paper.
By contrast, a decisive shift towards a just energy transition could reinforce South Africa’s diplomatic positioning. The concept of a ‘just transition,’ strongly developed in the South African context by scholars such as Harald Winkler, emphasises not only decarbonisation but also equity, labour protection, and inclusive development.[x] South Africa’s own Just Energy Transition Investment Plan signals an awareness of these imperatives, even if its implementation remains contested. Of course, such a transition must take into account pragmatic energy security considerations – particularly those related to the congestion of South Africa’s domestic electricity transmission infrastructure, which is delaying the rollout of renewable electricity generation infrastructure.
Aligning the domestic agenda with the principles of ubuntu would allow South Africa to articulate a more coherent foreign policy: one that links climate justice, development, and regionalism in a tangible way. Such a reorientation would also resonate with broader currents in global climate politics. Climate justice scholarship has long argued that addressing climate change requires confronting historical inequalities and ensuring that transitions do not reproduce existing forms of marginalisation.[xi] Ubuntu, with its emphasis on shared humanity and mutual care, offers a philosophically-grounded framework through which South Africa could engage these debates – not merely as a participant, but as a norm entrepreneur.
The question is not whether South Africa can perfectly embody a diplomacy of ubuntu. It is whether its policy trajectory moves closer to or further away from that ideal. On this account, the continued expansion of fossil fuels appears increasingly difficult to justify. It entrenches forms of dependency that undermine sovereignty, perpetuates environmental harms that violate the principle of common humanity, and weakens the state’s moral standing in world politics.
If ubuntu is to be more than rhetorical flourish – if it is to function as a genuine organising principle of foreign policy – then it must be reflected in the material foundations of the state’s development model. This necessarily includes the energy system. Accordingly, South African policymakers should strive for greater coherence between the state’s domestic and foreign policies. A diplomacy of ubuntu, to be credible, must be powered not by coal or oil, but by a commitment to justice – social, ecological, and global – and a dedicated effort to transition the domestic energy sector towards one that is renewable, humane, and inclusive.
---
[i] South African Department of International Relations & Cooperation (DIRCO). 2011. White Paper on South African Foreign Policy – Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu.
[ii] See, for instance, Zondi, Siphamandla. 2014. The Rhetoric of Ubuntu Diplomacy and Implications for Making the World Safe for Diversity; Qobo, Mzukisi & Nyathi, Nceku. 2016. Ubuntu, Public Policy Ethics, and Tensions in South Africa’s Foreign Policy; le Pere, Garth. 2017. Ubuntu as Foreign Policy: The Ambiguities of South Africa’s Brand Image and Identity.
[iii] See, for example, some of the consistencies of language between the White Paper and the DIRCO’s 2025-2030 Strategic Plan. Indeed, even the DIRCO’s quarterly magazine is entitled, Ubuntu: South Africa’s Public Diplomacy in Action.
[iv] Mandrup, Thomas & Smith, Karen. 2015. South Africa’s ‘Diplomacy of Ubuntu’: An African Approach to Coexistence? In The BRICS and Coexistence: An Alternative Vision of World Order.
[v] Acosta, Alberto. 2013. Extractivism and Neoextractivism: Two Sides of the Same Curse. In Beyond Development: Alternative Visions from Latin America.
[vi] Indeed, fossil fuel loyalism is embedded in broader political-economic systems of what might be termed ‘fossil-fuel capitalism’ or ‘petro-market capitalism.’ See Newell, Peter & Paterson, Matthew. 2010. Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy and DiMuzio, Tim. 2014. Capitalising a Future Unsustainable: Finance, Energy, and the Fate of Market Civilisation.
[vii] See the recent study by the South African Medical Research Council. 2026. The Impact of Air Pollution on Human Health in the Three Air Pollution Priority Areas in South Africa. Also see Wernecke, Bianca et al. 2022. Ambient Air Pollution on the Highveld: An Airshed at a Watershed Moment? and Kamolane-Kgadima, Busisiwe & Kathi, Thandeka. 2024. The Mpumalanga Highveld Air Pollution Crisis: A South African Reparations Framework for Environmental State-Corporate Harm.
[viii] Joint Research Centre, European Commission. 2025. GHG Emissions of All World Countries, 2025.
[ix] For instance, Alden, Chris & le Pere, Garth. 2009. South Africa in Africa: Bound to Lead?
[x] Winkler, Harald et al. 2021. Just Transition Transaction in South Africa: An Innovative Way to Finance Accelerated Phase-Out of Coal and Fund Social Justice.
[xi] For instance, Newell, Peter & Mulvaney, Dustin. 2013. The Political Economy of the ‘Just Transition’.
---
Daniel Tate is a Trustee and former Chairperson of Oxford Climate Alumni Network (OxCAN). He is a South African-Zimbabwean Rhodes Scholar, Allan Gray Fellow, and DPhil (PhD) candidate in International Relations at the University of Oxford. He is also a Researcher in the trade, regional integration, and industrial policy practice of DNA Economics, a South African development economics consultancy.
---
Blogs are the opinions of their authors and do not represent the official views of OxCAN.
Comments