Constructive diplomacy in the face of the Ukraine conflict

THE conflict in Ukraine has become the latest flash point for international relations and diplomatic stereotypes and innuendos against growing bilateral relations between China and South Africa, and China and African countries.

Such diplomatic and public posture deny independent autonomous agency and existence from countries in the Global South in addressing global crisis outside Western leadership and dominancy.

There is no doubt that the world faces unprecedented security uncertainty from the conflict in Ukraine requiring urgent attention from global peacemakers. After two months of the conflict, there is global consensus on one fact, that the conflict may take longer than projected by mostly Western pundits.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the seismic economic tremors from the conflict in Ukraine will slash global economic growth by half, with severe consequences on global value chains and food security.

The conflict has also unleashed a shocking humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, with far-reaching socio-economic global consequences. The use of sanctions to contain Russia will trigger a medium to long-term economic crisis in the Russian Federation, with severe socio-economic global impact given that the Russian economy is well integrated into the global economy.

Undoubtedly, such looming global crisis warrants high level diplomatic engagements and consultations amongst critical global players.

The convergence of South Africa and China in proposing constructive diplomacy, as opposed to war in resolving the conflict in Ukraine, is commendable.

As reported in the media, on March 18 presidents Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa and Xi of China held a telephonic meeting to discuss issues of national and global interest, drawing critical attention in South Africa.

The meeting affirmed the position of the two countries to seek dialogue and mediation to end the conflict in Ukraine.

Although this may not be uncommon for such high-profile engagements in the context of looming crisis, it is important to understand why this specific diplomatic meeting between two major powers from the Global South provoked such polarised debate, particularly the hostile perceptions, stereotypes, innuendo and what feeds into them.

China and South Africa were criticised for abstaining three times from resolutions in the UN General Assembly condemning the role of Russia in the conflict in Ukraine.

Secondly, both countries have rejected concerted pressure to publicly condemn, criticise, isolate and blame Russia for the conflict in Ukraine, opting to push for constructive dialogue and mediation. Russia is an important member of the BRICS.

Both China and South Africa have argued that they believe in a balanced approach, which is objective and impartial, to find sustainable diplomatic resolution to the conflict by addressing the concerns of all the conflict parties.

The convergence of China and South Africa on mediation and dialogue as the most suitable solution to the conflict in Ukraine has been undermined without much thought, in spite of their huge global diplomatic influence and leverage.

The call between President Putin and Ramaphosa was scandalised, with insinuations of partiality on the side of both China and South Africa. However, as reported by Al Jazeera, President Ramaphosa reportedly spoke with President Zelenskyy on April 21, restating his call for a negotiated end to the conflict in Ukraine.

Despite the criticism, South Africa, and China continue to make a case for dialogue to end a potential international crisis. That the two major powers from the Global South discussed mediation and dialogue as an alternative solution to war is demonstrative of their willingness and role in addressing threats to global peace and security.

Fundamentally, the Global South is defining its path, autonomously carving its role in global affairs, seeking and providing solutions to global threats as equal global partners.

According to a statement released by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China and South Africa held “a very similar position on the Ukraine issue”, rooted in constructive engagement characterised by dialogue, mediation and negotiations. The two countries believe that “sovereign countries are entitled to independently decide on their own positions”.

The statement further stated that, “Both sides support Russia and Ukraine in keeping the momentum of peace talks and settling disputes through dialogue and negotiations. The two leaders said they are ready to strengthen communication and co-ordination in this regard,” the ministry added.

In the same statement, China rejected any arm-twisting and misrepresentation of its position, stating “China will continue to make independent judgements based on the merits of the matter and in an objective and fair attitude. We will never accept any external coercion and pressure, and oppose any groundless accusations and suspicions against China”.

China has openly stated its official position about the conflict in Ukraine, in spite of wild speculation fomented by Western officials and media.

The West has cast potent aspersions and doubts on the growing robust partnership between China and South Africa in confronting contemporary global challenges from the agency perspective and a solidly united cohesive front bringing together developing nations from the Global South.

The characteristic arrogance embedded in Western coercive diplomacy, the general fear of China manifested in baseless or unsubstantiated suspicions against cohesive multilateralism in the Global South, is detrimental to global peace, and broader efforts to find peaceful solutions to the conflict in Ukraine.