Cyril takes the kid gloves off
LINES IN THE SAND: RESPECT NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND RETURN THE UKRAINIAN KIDS
Lasting ceasefire hinges on a commitment by the warring parties – expert.
After months of allegedly treating Russia with kid gloves, President Cyril Ramaphosa this weekend stiffened his position as the head of an African peace mission, making it plain to President Vladimir Putin that the United Nations (UN) Charter on national sovereignty and the maintaining of borders must be respected.
It was that UN Charter which saw 143 countries vote in favour of a resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Five countries voted against it, while South Africa was one of 35 that abstained.
Ramaphosa also used the term “war” to describe the fighting in Ukraine. Russians have been at pains to refer to it as a “special military operation”.
In addition, he revealed that one of the proposals by the African peace mission was that Ukrainian children taken to Russia should be returned home. Moscow claims the children were “rescued”.
Experts yesterday said Ramaphosa’s African leaders’ peace mission to Ukraine and Russia was not expected to yield positive early results in ending the 16-month-long war.
It got off to a shaky start, from copied permits for the weapons aboard a chartered SA Airways fl ight carrying special forces and journalists passing through a Polish airport, to a diplomacy bungle by Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya.
All of this put South Africa in a bad light.
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky placed the pulling out of Russian troops and the halting of attacks as a precondition for any peace between his country and Russia, Ramaphosa is said to have exerted pressure on Putin during a meeting with his Russian counterpart, calling for: Respect for national sovereignty as set out by the United Nations Charter – acknowledging Ukraine’s borders. The return of Ukrainian children from Russia to their country.
Magwenya described the proposed peace plan as having “created a foundation for future engagements that will contribute to a road to peace and resolution to the devastating confl ict”.
“The African heads of state and government, asserted several key elements that are vital in starting a path to peace.
“President Ramaphosa is encouraged by the warm reception the delegation received from the presidents of Ukraine and Russia.
“The president will further reflect on the engagements by the African peace mission in his weekly newsletter [today].”
The de-escalation of the confl ict. The release of the prisoners of war and children. Adherence to the principle of the UN Charter on sovereignty. Ensuring humanitarian support for those in need and postwar reconstruction.
While there has been a mixed reaction to the African peace mission, University of Pretoria politics lecturer Roland Henwood lauded the intervention as being “positive”.
He said any lasting ceasefire and peace hinged on a commitment by the warring parties “to make a shift away from achieving a decisive military victory”.
“There are several peace plans circulating, which can be positive – also indicating the different positions and self-interests underlying the proposals.
“The real peace must be the result of Ukrainian interests, not Russian, Chinese or US interests.
“There must be long-term guarantees for all issues and interests.”
He said: “Putin holds the key. He started an illegal war and is partly occupying another country. [He] has to withdraw, with reparations required.”
Magwenya was embroiled in a storm over comments that no attacks had occurred while the mission was in Ukraine.
He was adamant he “did not hear any explosion, see any missile or hear any sirens in Kyiv”, a statement slammed by some foreign journalists.
Communications expert Sarah Britten, said of his bungling: “Several prominent journalists commented with disbelief, if not actual contempt.
“The comments served to further undermine South Africa’s already damaged credibility. He could have kept comments to a minimum.
“He seems to have missed the diplomatic part. The whole thing was an embarrassment.”
Commenting on the 26-hour diplomatic standoff between South Africa and Poland when SA special forces and local journalists were detained by Polish police at the Warsaw Chopin Airport, defence expert Helmoed-Römer Heitman said he was “surprised by the size of the team”.
“I would expect that level of protection when going into a country in upheaval due to insurgency, terrorism or revolution, for instance when former president Jacob Zuma went into Libya and Cote d’Ivoire.
“That is not the case in Ukraine. While they are at war, they have control over their territory. We needed a normal close protection team, but that did seem a bit over the top.
“I was startled to hear President Ramaphosa’s head of security, Major-General Wally Rhoode, referring to some members only having copies of permits and to our embassy printing them.
“I do not think any country would accept copies of permits – far too easily cooked.
“I also do not see how our embassy could print Polish government weapons transit permits.”
It is a pity that Major-General Wally Rhoode’s flying circus – which saw a plane full of security personnel and journalists kept on the ground for two days in Warsaw, Poland – generated so much dust it almost obscured what Cyril Ramaphosa and the African peace mission were trying to do. Whatever the reality, the row and the huge local and international media coverage it generated, diverted attention away from what Ramaphosa was saying.
And his words were significant. Firstly, he referred to what was happening in Ukraine as a “war”, a term the Russians abhor, because they refer to their invasion as a “special military operation”.
Then he made it plain that one of the principles of the African nations’ peace plan was adherence to the United Nations (UN) Charter, cardinal to which is respect for nations’ sovereignty and international borders – both of which were violated by the Russians.
It was a marked turnaround from South Africa’s stance last year, when it effectively ignored the UN Charter by abstaining from voting on a resolution condemning the Russian invasion.
Not only that, Ramaphosa implicitly rejected the Russian narrative about the Ukrainian children who were taken to Russia, insisting they be returned home.
It remains to be seen whether Ramaphosa’s words came through a change of heart by South Africa or through pressure from the peace mission’s other members.
Though Ramaphosa and the ANC may insist they have not changed their “non-aligned” stance, his emphasis on the primacy of the UN Charter was critically important because it cut to the heart of the issue on Ukraine.
The Russians were, predictably, not impressed and said the African plan would be “difficult” to implement.
However, Ramaphosa possibly had in mind a different audience: The United States and the West. His message would have been clear: South Africa is not a Moscow lackey.