South Africa could pay heavily for abstaining in the United Nations (UN) vote to condemn Russia and call for the withdrawal of its troops.
It was an abstention, but in effect, South Africa sided with Russia. And that position now stands as a show of indifference to the plight of civilians coming under Russian bombardment.
South Africa has chosen the wrong side morally, and also goes against our interests.
No longer will the big western countries want a close relationship with South Africa. That could mean more limited diplomatic access in western capitals and no new big trade deals. The abstention puts South Africa on the side of human rights violators and close Russian allies. That’s all in line with our UN voting record, but this time it is war, and it will emerge as an expensive decision.
Our diplomatic bungling on this did not help either. Initially South Africa called for a withdrawal of Russian troops, but then went soft and called for mediation. This flip-flop could well have shown that we came under pressure from somewhere. In a Twitter post last week, the Russian Embassy thanked the South African people for support. They should have really just thanked the government.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a break point in post-Cold War history. This has been long in coming, but the Ukraine invasion has forced countries to take sides on Russia’s action and role in the world. In this war, South Africa has sided with Russia and against the West.
On Monday last week, 141 of the 181 members of the United Nations who voted in the General Assembly that day supported a resolution that deplored “the aggression by the Russian Federation” and demanded an unconditional withdrawal of its forces. That means 78 percent of those voting were against Russia. It was not a legally binding resolution, but the vote did signal international ostracism of Russia.
Twelve did not vote
There are 193 members of the United Nations, but twelve did not vote, including seven African members. Venezuela could not vote due to failure to pay its dues. The countries supporting Russia were its close ally Belarus, and its friends North Korea, Eritrea and Syria.
Some 29 African countries voted to condemn Russia. South Africa could have easily followed most African countries, including Botswana, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria, and voted against Russia.
Countries abstaining, apart from South Africa, included Russia’s allies, Nicaragua and Cuba. Both China and India made excuses for their abstention. Only 16 out of the 54 African members of the UN joined South Africa in abstaining. Among the African abstainers were Mali, which relies on Russian mercenaries, and Zimbabwe, some of whose most powerful individuals are themselves under western sanctions.
Even Hungary and Serbia, both of whom are close to Russia, had the guts to vote for the resolution calling for a withdrawal.
There is little reason for surprise that South Africa abstained in the vote. After all, Pretoria has long voted at the UN and in bodies like the Human Rights Council along the lines of what human rights groups describe as a “friend of torture”. Four years ago President Donald Trump’s UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, pointed out that Zimbabwe, Burundi, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Bolivia, and South Africa were, in that order, the countries most unlikely to vote with the US at the United Nations. The clear implication of this was whether the US can be friends with such people?
What does abstaining on this really mean?
Middle ground
It does not imply neutrality or a middle ground. Given the wording of the resolution, an abstention clearly implies a refusal to condemn or call for the withdrawal of Russia’s troops. It is not under the circumstances as public a display of siding with Russia as voting against the resolution. An abstention on that day meant you wanted to maintain good relations with Russia and not side with the West.
So South Africa will be viewed internationally as a pro-Putin country. There is no coherent or logical neutral middle ground on this one. It’s a question of being for the Russian invasion or against.
The arguments for an abstention on the vote to condemn Russia tend to be contorted and illogical. One spurious view is that NATO is really the aggressor due to their threatened eastward expansion. Yet, the fact is that Ukraine as an independent country has the right to choose its own alliances. Ukraine has a government that was elected in free and fair elections and is entitled to make choices as an independent state.
And then, from South Africa there is the refusal to condemn a struggle ally, even one that has acted as a brazen imperialist in invading a neighbour. The ANC regards itself as an anti-imperialist organisation, yet it cannot get itself to condemn an imperialist, because it is seen as an ally.
An abstention also says that Russia could have a case. The main reason given by Russia for its invasion of Ukraine was to “de-Nazify” the country. This cannot have any credibility, and it is extraordinary that Moscow would even bother to use this reason.
If South Africa leans toward Russia, which tolerates very little dissent and is an increasingly closed society, the ANC could be inclined to stomp on dissent at home. That might be difficult because of our Constitution and the country’s appetite for democratic practices. However, on their own, these offer no guarantee for the future of liberty. For the moment, South Africa is certainly the most free country in Africa and ranks high up on this score internationally. But Expropriation without Compensation and an ANC response to its weakening position at the polls could erode this.
No strong bonds
There is no realpolitik or strategic reason for South Africa to support Russia. There is little trade or investment with Russia, few of their tourists come here, and there is not even a direct flight. There are no strong bonds inherent in the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) grouping. The idea was really initiated by a paper that came out of Goldman Sachs, pointing out that the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China would significantly increase as a share of world GDP. It is a very loose grouping and is endlessly trying to find grounds for its existence.
Pretoria might well wake up to surprises because of its stance. We could lose trade deals, chances for diplomatic contacts, expanded business and other links with the West, as well as financing. Although not heavily reliant on the US, South Africa does receive foreign aid, including large quantities of free anti-retrovirals to help fight HIV/AIDS.
The Germans, normally soft and understanding in their foreign policy, have finally toughened up by allocating a sizeable emergency amount to defence and cancelling the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia.
Germany is a major investor in our car industry and seeks good relations with South Africa. Our stance on Ukraine could easily force the Germans to distance themselves from us.
South Africa would be better served by choosing its friends a lot more carefully.
[Image: Kyle Glenn on Unsplash]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend