Despite its captivating name, the shipment known as Lady R may leave U. S. -South African relations untethered.
Despite its captivating name, the shipment known as Lady R may leave U. S. -South African relations untethered.
The diplomatic cave between the two allies follows allegations by US Ambassador to South Africa Reuben Brigety that South Africa sent weapons to Russia aboard the shipping ship, which departed from Simon’s Town naval base in South Africa last December, bound for Russia.
Unfortunately, instead of appearing to lead, President Cyril Ramaphosa has done what his citizens are now accustomed to getting from him domestically, whenever he faces a crisis: entrusting the challenge to an “independent investigation” headed by a retired judge. Ramaphosa has been known to avoid tough decisions, despite his executive powers and constitutional duties as the country’s president.
At best, the status quo of a judicial commission of inquiry shows that the state has no idea what happens to Lady R and, at worst, shows that it is buying time to deal with potentially irreparable damage to the country’s symbol if, in fact, South Africa was to help Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime kill innocent Ukrainians. Sanctions that oppose Russia may lead to the U. S. The U. S. government will punish sanctions violators, adding its allies, a move that may devastate the South African economy.
The South African economy, which lately is developing at less than 1 percent, facing unemployment rates above 30 percent and inflation of around 7 percent, has not been able to absorb the consequences of potential U. S. economic sanctions. The U. S. government, adding relief from preferential access to certain U. S. markets. Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which is being debated in Congress on its renewal in 2025.
Indeed, a non-aligned country can criticize both the United States and Russia.
South Africa could lose up to 60 billion rand ($3 billion) a year in exports, and sectors such as the automotive industry would see significant additional job losses with disastrous social and political consequences at the national level. Africa, making Ramaphosa’s ambitious leadership even more costly for the country.
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, South Africa has proudly displayed its status as a non-aligned country, abstaining from UN votes condemning Russia and insisting on its neutrality even as it conducts naval exercises with Russia and China, sends senior defense officials to Moscow and hosts mysterious Russian ships and planes in its ports and airports.
Pretoria’s poorly articulated public statements on South Africa’s non-alignment stance, given geopolitical and economic interests, make the government’s moves all the more inexplicable and incoherent. Non-alignment makes sense, but not in this case.
There are, of course, times when a state can, and will have to, resist siding with the parties to a dispute. For example, when the facts are in fact difficult to understand or when all belligerents seem to be concerned. In grave misdeeds, the most pragmatic end results for the world might be for a capable and indeed impartial party to act as an intermediary for peace. Sometimes, the reasons for impartiality might even be based on self-interest and realpolitik as principles. A fair case is France’s position on Iraq in 2003.
Despite being a key member of the Western alliance, France did not invade Iraq through the army through its close allies in 2003. He called for additional inspections to determine whether or not the country possessed weapons of mass destruction. At the time, the French government was also facing overwhelming negative public sentiment towards the invasion of Iraq, being the European country with the largest Muslim population and knowing that it had serious economic interests in the country’s oil fields.
Although France’s objections were formulated in ethical terms in a memorable speech by then-Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, it is also a case of non-alignment based on rational self-interest.
Today, nothing in South Africa’s vagueness about its Russian-Ukrainian policy is helping the world perceive what motivates it, other than hostility toward U. S. imperialism and an old affinity with Moscow, an affinity that many Soviet-trained African Union leaders conveniently forget. The National Congress (ANC) was in fact trained on Ukrainian soil. But being dissatisfied with America’s position in the world does not logically mean supporting an illegal war unleashed through Russia. Indeed, a non-aligned country can criticize the United States and Russia.
South Africa has consistently failed to explain, substantively, precisely what its doctrine of non-alignment is.
Pretoria said it only supported the “peaceful resolution” of conflicts around the world. He recently volunteered, along with an organization from five other African countries, to travel to Moscow and Kiev as part of what Ramaphosa described as a “peace mission. “About the expected effects and the main points of how this would be achieved, he was not able to what he would count as a success, and indistinct about the main points of the trip. It also continues to forget the well-known fact that Russia violated foreign law through the invasion of Ukraine, and is therefore the undisputed aggressor.
South Africa has consistently failed to explain, substantially, precisely what its doctrine of non-alignment is. From the refusal of diplomats to vote in favor of UN resolutions condemning Russia for invading Ukraine without just cause, one can only infer that South Africa’s de facto concept of non-alignment is to opt for silence without ever protecting that position very well, even when the facts that exist allow it to adopt a transparent and evidence-based position. This careless use of the word “non-aligned” makes the concept of neutrality or non-alignment a wonderful disservice.
But South Africa’s concept of game-agnostic arbiter or peace envoy does not apply to a scenario in which one aspect invaded the other without provocation and in flagrant violation of foreign law. country when that country is oppressed through a regional hegemonic power with an impressive army.
By slavishly focusing on its poorly explained doctrine of non-alignment, perhaps motivated more by an ideological or long-standing affinity with Moscow, South Africa has selected the set of facts to bolster a case for neutrality. What the country deserves to have done instead was to draw inspiration from the history of the anti-apartheid movement and let the reminiscence of its struggle for justice tell the government’s understanding of how to respond to acts of state aggression in the fashion world.
Indeed, the incoherence of the Ramaphosa government is compounded by the fact that the liberation motion has benefited from global ethical clarity on the condemnation factor of apartheid, a history that the country’s leaders seem to have forgotten when confronted with Russia’s aggression against Ukrainians. people.
Liberation movements, particularly the one led by the African National Congress, have benefited from the ethical clarity demanded by anti-apartheid activists and organizations around the world. Apartheid rightly declared a crime against humanity, and no one can simply be impartial in their attitude. towards apartheid unless they were ethical cowards.
It is that Ramaphosa or any ANC leader in the 1980s would tolerate a country saying it would not “take sides” in the internal oppression of black people in South Africa through brutal white minority rule. Neutrality was not a real option when it came to apartheid. States will have to take a stand, and the morally correct position is to condemn it unambiguously.
Simply put, non-alignment through outsiders or bystanders is justifiable if one of the parties to a confrontation is obviously the aggressor, behaves illegally, has no ethical basis for the use of force, or has massively disproportionate force that it can use to annihilate or oppress the other side. as Russia is trying to do in Ukraine and the white minority regime is trying to do in South Africa. South.
In 1994, democratic South Africa heralded its global arrival with Nelson Mandela’s famous declaration that “never, never behind and never behind this beautiful country will delight in the oppression of one another. “This commitment was expressed in a rather broad and liberal sense. Charter that codified not only civil and political rights, but also socio-economic rights and rights to a safe environment.
However, something in Ramaphosa’s indifference to the suffering of Ukrainians due to Russia’s illegal war suggests a serious and demonstrable commitment to Mandela’s famous words. Unfortunately, it would seem that the new South Africa is committed to human rights in jurisprudence, but in terms of foreign policy. .
South Africa’s position on Russia is a projection of vagueness, inconsistency and forgetfulness on the global stage. Ultimately, Ramaphosa’s ruling ANC behaves like an ethical coward, despite being a longtime beneficiary of ethical clarity in the struggle against apartheid.
Eusebius McKaiser is a TimesLIVE analyst and host of the podcast “In the Ring With Eusebius McKaiser. “You are in Johannesburg. Twitter: @Eusebius
Commenting on this and other recent articles is only one part of a foreign policy subscription.
View comments
Join the verbal exchange on this and recent foreign policy articles when you subscribe now.
View comments
Follow our comment guidelines on the subject and be courteous, courteous, and respectful of the ideals of others.
The default username was generated with the first and first initials of your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not involve other offensive language.
By submitting yourArray, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and obtain correspondence from us. You can unsubscribe at any time.
By submitting yourArray, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and obtain correspondence from us. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Your advisor to the top global stories of the day.
Essential investigation of the narratives that the geopolitics of the continent. Delivered on Wednesday.
Unique compendium of politics, economics and culture. Delivered on Friday.
The latest news, research and insights from the country each and every week. Delivered on Wednesdays.
Weekly on developments in India and its neighbors. Delivered on Thursday.
Weekly update on what’s driving U. S. national security policyU. S. Delivered on Thursday.
An organized variety of our long readings. Delivered on Wednesdays and Sundays.
Recap of the evening with our favorite stories from our editors of the day. Delivered from Monday to Saturday.
A monthly summary of the most productive articles read through FP subscribers.
By registering, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and get special benefits from Foreign Policy.
Registered
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.
Only FP subscribers can ask questions for FP Live interviews.