Do regional powers prioritise their regions? Comparing Brazil, South Africa and Turkey

Abstract

Regional powers are often assumed to place diplomatic emphasis on their surrounding regions. Yet few systematic comparisons have been carried out to empirically verify this assumption. Do regional powers tend to devote more attention to their neighbours or to more influential global partners instead? This article attempts to bridge that gap by comparing the amount of diplomatic attention that Brazil, South Africa and Turkey have devoted to their regions, ie South America, Africa and the Middle East/North Africa region, respectively. Relying on data on presidential diplomacy and diplomatic presence from the Rising Powers Diplomatic Network (RPDN) data set, we verify which destinations were prioritised by these three countries from 1995 to 2018. Results indicate that South Africa is the most regionally committed regional power. Turkey shows the least significant regional engagement, while Brazil occupies an intermediate position.

Keywords:

• Brazil
• South Africa
• Turkey
• regional powers
• presidential diplomacy
• diplomatic network

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jan Hofmeyr (Institute for Justice and Reconciliation) and Janis Van der Westhuizen (Stellenbosch University) for their support in obtaining data from the South African government, as well as the team of anonymous reviewers for their valuable contributions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 For more on the specificity of non-nuclear second-tier states with regards to their foreign ­policy options, see Milani et al. (2017).

2 Available at <http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/presidencia/ex-presidentes>, accessed August 20, 2019.

3 Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations <http://www.itamaraty.gov.br>

4 Instituto FHC. List of travels by former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, available at <http://acervo.ifhc.org.br/ModuloPesquisador/jsp/doctosApoio/8/viagens_1995_2002_alfa.pdf>, accessed January 5, 2019.

5 The 2019 data end in March 2019, as available at the “Presidency Annual Report 2018–2019”

6 Available at <http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/report-type/annual-reports>, accessed October 4, 2019.

7 Internet Archive Repository – Wayback Machine <https://web.archive.org/>

8 Available at <http://www.dirco.gov.za/events/2018/index.htm>

9 South African Government <http://www.gov.za>; Presidency <http://www.thepresidency.gov.za>; DIRCO directory of speeches <http://www.dirco.gov.za/docs/speeches/>; SADC <http://www.sadc.int>; ICGLR <http://icglr.org>; AU <http://www.au.int>

10 Website of the Presidency of the Turkish Republic <www.tccb.gov.tr>, accessed August 30, 2019.

11 Turkish MFA website <http://www.mfa.gov.tr/>, accessed September 25, 2019. Note that although the Ministry’s official name in Turkish is ‘Dışişleri Bakanlığı’, it regularly uses the English translation ‘Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ in its international publications; therefore, the initialism ‘MFA’ is utilised in this article as well.

12 Personal website of former president Abdullah Gül <www.abdullahgul.gen.tr>, accessed July 22, 2018.

13 The Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey (T. C. Remis Gazete) reports absences from the head of state due to official visits abroad. Available at <www.resmigazete.gov.tr>, accessed December 27, 2019.

14 Turkic Council <https://www.turkkon.org/en>, accessed December 27, 2019.

15 Available at Ankara University Library System. Search for ‘Chronology’ keyword <http://dspace.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/discover?scope=%2F&query=Chronology&submit=&rpp=10>, accessed May 30, 2020.

16 Turkish Diplomatic Archives <http://diad.mfa.gov.tr/chronicles-of-the-ministry-of-foreign-affairs.en.mfa>, accessed February 4, 2020.

17 HRI <http://www.hri.org/news/turkey/trkpr/>

18 http://www.basbakanlik.gov.tr. As this website is no longer active, we resorted to the Wayback Machine’s archived captures.

19 Information on military attachés (not used in this article) is not obtained from the MRE. As the timing and number of attachés distributed are governed by presidential decrees, this information must be retrieved at the portal of Brazilian Federal Legislation <http://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/>.

20 For MRE’s sources, see <http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/images/RISE.pdf>; for DIRCO sources, see <http://www.dirco.gov.za/foreign/Multilateral/profiles/index.html>; for Turkey’s MFA, see <http://www.mfa.gov.tr/sub.en.mfa?e55ad6a5-1b09-4788-a51c-2c1cae96fd0d>, accessed October 22, 2020.

21 The following countries were visited for mediation efforts: the former Zaire (Mandela: 1996–1997); Republic of Congo (Mbeki: 2000), DRC (Mbeki: 2000, 2002), Zimbabwe (Mbeki: 2000, 2002); Ivory Coast (Mbeki: 2002–2004; Zuma: 2011); Burundi (Mbeki: 2002–2004, 2006); Liberia (Mbeki: 2003); Comoros (Mbeki: 2003); Libya (Zuma: 2011); Central African Republic (Zuma: 2013); South Sudan (Zuma: 2014).

22 RPDN does not count occasions when a regional power hosted an incoming head of state. On some instances, these events coincided with mediation (eg Brazil and the Ecuador vs Peru Cenepa War). Also, only visits for which consulted sources were explicit about the mediatory purpose of the travel were coded as mediation.

23 The figures fall in line with Dieckhoff’s (2014) findings that, among the rising powers, South Africa is the most active mediator, if direct presidential engagement is privileged as a metric. Turkey also stands out as an important mediator if less personalistic and more institutionalised mediation practices are considered.

24 The abbreviations for Turkish political parties refer to Anavatan Partisi (ANAP), Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP), Demokratik Sol Parti (DSP), Demokrat Türkiye Partisi (DTP), Doğru Yol Partisi (DYP), Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi (MHP) and Refah Partisi (RP).

25 The absence of data on Turkish military attachés abroad, in particular, is a serious shortcoming given the importance of the military in Turkey’s external conduct.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) and by the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) through the project ‘Rising Powers Diplomatic Network’ (PIBIC/UFPE/CNPq ID: 190714000).

Notes on contributors

Rafael Mesquita

Rafael Mesquita is Assistant Professor of international relations at the Political Science Department of the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), researcher at the Núcleo de Estudos de Política Comparada e Relações Internacionais (NEPI, UFPE), Associate Research Fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA, Hamburg), and Coordinator of the research initiative ‘The Global South in Numbers’, which encompasses the ‘Rising Powers Diplomatic Network’ project.

Jia Huei Chien

Jia Huei Chien is an undergraduate student in political science, with an emphasis in international relations, at the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), and a PIBIC CNPq Research Fellow in the ‘Rising Powers Diplomatic Network’ project. Chien also holds a Technological Degree in International Trade from UNIFG (2017).