Steenhuisen visit to Ukraine a show of DA’s anti-war hypocrisy
He had never shown much interest in war-torn countries in Africa
Just over a week ago, DA leader John Steenhuisen travelled to Ukraine on what he termed a “fact-finding mission”.
During his six-day trip to the war-torn country, he shared videos and images of the situation in the country as a way to galvanise support for the East European country.
One of the more famous photographs from his trip captured him outside Bucha where buildings were destroyed by Russian bombs.
Many people on social media, as well as political analysts and social commentators, condemned his trip as nothing more than a gimmick to score political points.
Some referred to it as a “digression” and a “public relations blunder”. The point of contention for many was that Steenhuisen had never shown as much interest in war-torn countries on the African continent but deemed it necessary to do so in a country far from home.
It needs to be stated that SA is not unaffected by the war in Ukraine and the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Russia by the West.
Anyone who argues that our country is not impacted by the war only needs to go to a grocery store to understand just how devastating the war is on food security. The war has led to the termination of grain imports from both Russian and Ukraine, resulting in food insecurity and an emerging humanitarian crisis in developing countries in particular.
The skyrocketing price of petrol is also directly influenced by the war.
With a rise in petrol prices comes a rise in food, technological equipment and many other things.
The war also impacted South Africans, including students, living in Ukraine. Therefore, there should be no debate about the impact of the war on SA.
The debate should be on how Steenhuisen’s visit to Ukraine demonstrates which lives the DA values.
The fact of the matter is that there are indeed wars happening on the African continent in which millions of African lives have been lost. The Sahel region is a war-zone. Ethiopia, Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Sudan, Chad, the Central African Republic and South Sudan are all confronted with various levels of armed conflict and political instabilities.
Within the SADC region, the Democratic Republic of Congo has been plunged into a devastating war that has cost the lives of millions of people over the years and led to the displacement of many more. The casualties of these wars are seeking refuge in South Africa.
But much closer to home are the casualties of gang wars in the Western Cape where Steenhuisen’s party governs.
The DA has the ability to deal with this war and can make far more concrete interventions than it can in Ukraine. Why is it not prioritising this?
The answer is simple: the DA places less value on African (and specifically, black) lives. It places less value on any life that is not Caucasian, and this is demonstrated by its stance on the war in Palestine where it stands on the side of Israel, an apartheid state.
Despite its lukewarm calls for peace in Palestine, the DA has never named the aggressor in that war. It has also historically slammed the justified recalling of the SA ambassador to Israel.
For the DA, the only time war is a problem necessitating serious intervention is when Caucasian lives are being lost. I often wonder if it would have paid a visit to Mozambique had Caucasian lives and businesses not been at stake.
The DA has no moral authority to speak about international law and human rights, because its own politics demonstrate that it deems some more human than others.